Law for 90% tax rate could be hard to overturn

[stevedeshazer]

Source: Los Angeles Times


Reporting from Washington -- The American International Group Inc. employees who received big bonuses and now could face a 90% tax bill may feel they have been singled out for unfair punishment by angry lawmakers.

But they are not likely to win a court challenge if the legislation becomes law, because courts have given legislatures broad leeway to raise and lower taxes without running afoul of the Constitution, legal experts said Thursday.

"The courts are very reluctant to strike down tax legislation," said Edward McCaffery, a tax expert at the USC Gould School of Law. "I think a tax this high and this targeted raises some difficult questions, but at the end of the day, I would bet a constitutional challenge would not work."

The Constitution says "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." A bill of attainder singles out people for punishment, and an ex post facto law adds an after-the-fact punishment for past conduct. But the Supreme Court has limited those provisions to laws that "inflict punishment," mostly in the criminal arena.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-aig-legal20-2009mar20,1,1306210.story

---

The idea of a 90% income tax on the wealthy is not new. It happened in the WWII years and continued through the Truman and Eisenhower administrations.

President Kennedy lowered the top rate to 74%. It's only in the post-
Reagan years that the rich have been so exempt from taxes.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Yup. It's just people making shit up saying otherwise.

[valerief]

2. Boo hoo. I feel for them. NOT. nt

[LynnTheDem]

3. REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR the LARGEST TAX INCREASE in

US history.

:rofl:

[stevedeshazer]

4. Yes indeedy, Reagan doubled the FICA tax.

This is from *gasp* The National Review!

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp

<snip>

In 1982 alone, he (Reagan - sd) signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

[aquart]

6. Enjoy, enjoy.

[DUlover2909]

5. Excellent. Taxes aren't punishment, even though Tweety tried like hell to say it is.

Watch more porn.:kick: :P

[aquart]

7. They're a just and patriotic duty to your country.

Me, when someone complains about taxes, I shriek, "Idiot! Taxes mean you have an income!"

[Zavulon]

63. They're a legal obligation.

I'll never buy into the "patriotic" bit.

I can't speak for you, but from January 20, 2001 to January 19, 2009, one penny a year would have been too much tax for me. Any money going to the Bush empire was a ripoff. I didn't feel very "patriotic" when the government used its police powers to force me to fund the war machine, did you?

[NeoConsSuck]

69. Great post!

I feel exactly the same way. Protesting in the streets to stop a war based on lies, yet on the other hand, the government was using my tax money to drop bombs on wedding parties.

[bobburgster]

8. Unconstitutional.....

It won't fly.

[NorthernSpy]

10. Really? Then please cite the exact clause.

Waiting...

[bobburgster]

11. Ex Post Facto....

Wil find the exact clause.....and yes, 90% is punishment

[pattmarty]

15. Well exactly what the fuck do you think the max rate should be?

Do you think the 39.5 rate is to high? How bout rates under st ronnie? The rates were as high as 90% after WWII. So I'm waiting for your constitutional expertise.

[Zavulon]

64. This is why I stray outside the Lounge less frequently every week.

I can't see any reason for that sort of hostility: "Well exactly what the fuck do you think the max rate should be?" Jesus Christ, did the person you're responding to beat you out of your milk money in school?

Just because the rates were as high as 90% after WWII doesn't make a 90% rate right.

My personal take: anything higher than 50%, even for the uber-rich, is too much. I don't care what someone's income is, the federal government shouldn't be taking more than half.

Now feel free to uncork a stream of obscenities at me, since that sort of thing seems to make you feel really good.

[nolabels]

70. By the time you figure in all the the contributory taxes and government fees.....

many in the middle class are already slated to pay over 50%

[NorthernSpy]

34. The ex post facto clause refers to criminal proceedings.

... and possibly some civil proceedings.


It doesn't apply to changes to the tax code..


Try again.

[TwixVoy]

68. BS

The constitution does NOT qualify the statement about non ex-posto facto law. It simply says it can't be done. It doesn't say "Except in civil cases".

[melm00se]

18. Article 1, Section 9

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section9

Paragraph 3

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

[No Elephants]

22. There is also an issue of whether that would be taking of property without due process.

[melm00se]

25. yup

it appears that the Legislative branch is overstepping it's bounds and trespassing on the Judicial branch territory

[NorthernSpy]

36. No. The government has the undisputed authority to levy taxes.

Well, you may dispute the government's authority to levy taxes. But the Constitution doesn't, and the Supreme Court doesn't.

[NorthernSpy]

35. Again, ex post facto and bill of attainder do not refer to taxation.

Try again.

[SteelPenguin]

49. United States v. Carlton 1994

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1941.ZS.html

In case someone doesn't believe you and wanted the citation. Ex post facto doesn't apply to taxation.

[NorthernSpy]

58. thank you, SteelPenguin!

:)

[bobburgster]

78. Hmmmm

Bill of Attainder,"Article I, Section 9, Clause 3" which is when a legislative body singles out an individual or group for punishment, was another concern regarding constitutionality, but I believe they worded the bill in more general terms beyond the AIG fiasco.

[fascisthunter]

20. oh geez

[TankLV]

71. ahh - we have another one, folks...!!!

[David__77]

9. Clearly a 90% tax rate is legal.

But I do wonder if it may be problematic to make it retroactive.

[bobburgster]

12. I agree on retro...

Some other things to consider....."Bill of Attainder"-a legislative action aimed at punishing individuals, explicitly prohibited by the Constitution in Article I, Section 9, Clause 3.

also....precedent that the tax code can be used to impose confiscatory tax rates on other individuals.

[slackmaster]

26. Courts have upheld Congress making tax rates retroactive to the start of the year

I think that has opened up a can of worms.

[Angleae]

27. But is a 90% tax on employees of company X legal?

[closeupready]

28. That's not how this tax bill was written.

It's something like a 90% tax on bonuses over X dollars for any TARP recipient bank.

Seems constitutional to me.

[Flora]

13. Any word yet

on how punishment will be handed down to those in Washington to allow the bonus loophole to appear in the bill??

Maybe a 90% tax on the income of those responsible to help pay back the American taxpayers? I could go for that. }(

[No Elephants]

14. Saying that high tax rates are not novel misses the point. The issue is whether

Congress can direct a law only at a specific group to which it happens to be feeling vindictive, to deprive them of property acquired pursuant to contract. I don't want AIG folk to keep those bonuses, either, but I can see where that could be a slippery slope.

That is very different from saying everyone who made X amount in 2009 has to pay a 90% tax rate. That is comparable to high tax rates in effect from WWII through Eisenhower and, to a lesser extent, JFK.

Mathematically, the historical precedents may seem highly relevant. As far as legal issues, though, this new law has may well be unprecedented. And, when we are talking Constitution, we are talking legal issues, not little numbers versus big numbers.

Even if you love this law, first, at least think about how laws analogous to this could have been misused in 2001, or by the next Dummya Cheney Rove-like administration. Yes, I understand that that there was no bailout in 2001. However, if this precedent had existed then, do you think that would have made any difference to Bushco?

[twitomy]

16. I Agree with you

Give Congress the power to tax your income, they have the power to tax it ALL.

Congress passed this bailout with a provision that let these legally binding contracts continue. It appears the Obama Administration, and/or his Treasury Department, lobbied for this provision.

So the legal payments are made, and Congress and the President bellow "Shocked I I tell you, Shocked!" And proceed to use tax law to confiscate the money..

They apparently take us for fools...

[karynnj]

79. this sounds suspiciously like the RW version

These bonuses were set last year and Bush and Paulson did nothing then to require them to stop - though many Democratic legislators questioned top officers' compensation - a letter from Bernake to Kerry to a letter he wrote in October said they were watching things like that.

The bail out bill contained legislation TO REGULATE EXCESSES. The provision that you and every Republican is speaking of allowed the bonuses to happen, but the NET effect of the entire amendment was to regulate. It is also ironic that the Republicans who have always fought regulation are making these charges.

[Romulox]

30. The answer is "yes"

Congress may single out groups for different tax treatment than other groups. The tax code is lousy with such examples.

[GeorgeGist]

17. U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9

says otherwise.

[Rwalsh]

19. Why single out just AIG?

What about all the other banks that got taxpayer money? Why not tax the bonuses they gave out?

This bill should apply to all rich people!

[slackmaster]

24. The bill passed in the House would apply to any company that recieved over $5 billion in TARP money

How they arrived at that figure, I have no freaking idea.

[Dreamer Tatum]

32. I think all you need is a DVR to prove the intent of the tax

I wish people would stop equating doubts about constitutionality to cheerleading for AIG, but I guess some
people are just simple, binary thinkers.

There are highly legitimate constitutional issues here, none of which are mitigated by "but they don't DESERVE the bonuses!"

I think in this instance the timing and the target of the tax invite overwhelming legal challenges.

Imagine a Republican Congress that doesn't like Tarantino movies, so they tax his distributors 99% ex post facto. Would you like that? Would you be a party to precedent that allows something like that? Does that even sound American to you?

[GinaMaria]

51. what if the American Tax payer funded those Tarantino movies?

And our money was not used in the manner it was intended? Do you think people would be up in arms to tax the film industry people who took tax payer money and didn't use the money the money the way it was intended? It's the same thing. It's not about liking or disliking any industry or entity. It's about the misuse of taxpayer money.

[Dreamer Tatum]

56. Has not squat to do with the Constitution

Unless I missed the point where it says "unless we pay for it."

[slackmaster]

53. The way I look at it seems simple to me

If Congress can do that to some people, they can do it to anyone. Who will be next?

[B2G]

59. Bingo. n/t

[christx30]

41. Or better yet

Why not other people that may have profited in one way or
another from the banking and mortgage meltdowns?  The loan
officers?  The people that were working overtime handing all
of the applications?  why not tax the beejezus out of them
too?  Oil company execs?  The guy at the gas station?    Or
just anyone else that is a current political pariah.  The fact
is the 90% tax is a bad move, which will set a dangerous
precedent.   I think it compromises the Constitution that will
lead to others.  They might not deserve the money, and I think
it would be a very good for them to give it back.  But taxing
them to the stone age isn't a good idea.  And since it sets
precedence, I think the pubes will use it against us in some
way.  Maybe people that contribute to MoveOn.org might be hit
for some convoluted reason.
Don't use weapons that you wouldn't want used against you.
 

[TankLV]

72. Gee - you're from texASS, what a surprise...

[Irish Girl]

21. Legalities questioned ...

I'm ANGRY AS HELL but I can see where a well-meaning (and furious) public will inadvertently give Congress a power which will be very difficult to retract. This is Unconstitutional and something I just heard on the news really bothered me;

"Although legalities are being questioned, Congress is rushing to pass a law to tax AIG bonuses in order to placate a furious public the quickest way possible."

I feel like once again we're being baited down a very scary road. :(

[No Elephants]

23. I agree. Who is baiting us this time, though? Not Bush. I think the media is

whipping people into a frenzy. And succeeding.

[happyslug]

45. Congress has the power to pass and collect this tax.

Congress power to tax is set by Article 1, Paragraph 8 of the US Constitution:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1

The only restriction on the collection of tax is that it must be "uniform throughout the United States" and that can be done as by simply making it valid in all 50 states (Which Congress has done in the proposed law).

As to the 1894 US Supreme Court decision striking down the US Income Tax passed just a few years earlier, even the Supreme Court indicated that it made an error when it upheld the US Inheritance tax around 1896, In that decision the Court ruled the inheritance tax was constitutional for Congress had passed one during the US Civil War and the Supreme Court had upheld it in 1864. The 1864 decision relied on the 1862 Decision of the Court that the Income Tax passed in 1861 was Constitutional (It was repealed in 1874 by a lame duck GOP controlled Congress). Thus the 1894 decision was questionable when it was made, questioned within a few years but Congress was NOT willing to pass an Income Tax till 1909.

In 1909, President Taft, who opposed the Income Tax, in an effort to defeat the Income Tax, proposed Congress to pass the Amendment to the US Constitution saying Income taxes were Constitutional. Taft hoped by asking for the Amendment the GOP could get control of Congress and defeat the Tax one more time, but the Amendment passed and an Income Tax was passed in 1912 and was immediately challenge. The US Supreme Court then ruled that the Amendment to permit an Income tax was NOT needed, for Income taxes were uniform and thus constitutional even without the amendment.

The Grounds used to attack the Income Tax is found in Article 1, Paragraph 9:

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The Court in 1862 and again in 1913 ruled that an Income tax was NOT a Head tax (another name for a Capitation tax) but more in nature of a "excise" tax in that it was a tax on property (In the case of an Income tax, Income) NOT a tax just because you were breathing (Which is what a head tax is). In 1894 the Court ruled the Income Tax was a head tax and thus violated the above provision, but as I said above the Court reversed itself (in regards to Inheritance tax) within two years.

As to Ex Post Facto Laws, that has since before the Constitution applied only to criminal law. See
CALDER v. BULL, 3 U.S. 386 (1798) which made the clear within 10 years of the adoption of the Constitution:
It can be read hear:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=3&page=386

[Dorian Gray]

48. They're rushing to pass the law?

Isn't that what got us into this mess by rushing to pass the bail out and stimulus bills without any oversight for crap like this?

They need to pause, take a deep breath, and not rush into this fervor without considering all the consequences of the bill.

[Romulox]

29. LOL at all of those saying "Unconstitutional" as if it were a magic word.

You must explain how such a law is unconstitutional if you wish to argue the point. (Hint: it ain't an "ex post facto" law (which applies to criminal matters) and it ain't a Bill of Attainder (a law written to punish a discrete and closed class of persons.)

Absent these obviously incorrect arguments, it seems none of our resident Constitutional scholars have any real basis to argue that the tax bill is Unconstitutional. So I guess the "magic word" approach is the best you got. :shrug:

[Irish Girl]

31. How I would argue the point

.. please keep me mind I am livid but trying not to act out of vindictiveness.

AIG contracted with employees prior to 2/11/2008 when no bailout was being sought, nor existed. Congress passed the T.A.R.P. legislation which specifically placed no limit on AIG compensation agreements made prior to 2/11/2008 (the amendment Dodd had slipped in.) There was also full disclosure to both the White House and Treasury months ago regarding these bonuses.

As much as this SUCKS, I'm not sure this IS Constitutional, Roulox. I'm by no means a scholar but it seems like this is a mob rule vengeance tax which can lead down a dangerous road. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of course.

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Thoughts? :shrug:

[Dreamer Tatum]

33. I don't think the "LOL" argument is admissible in federal court

There are issues here. The tax is CLEARLY aimed at fewer than 100 people. Anyone else caught in the crossfire would have a legitimate beef, too.

Remember: federal taxes were ALREADY PAID on bonuses that would be subject to the new tax. That itself calls the incremental tax into question.

[amandabeech]

38. I don't think that this will be necessarily catch fewer than 100.

After all quite a few firms have received TARP money, and there may be more out there by the end of the year.

It's been a long time since I finished law school. Would you please produce a cite to the 100 person rule? I just don't remember it.

[amandabeech]

37. My recollection is that "ex post facto" may also refer to civil laws,

but "bill of attainder" is interpreted to apply almost exclusively to criminal laws.

In this case, the law will apply starting in the 2009 tax year. Tax laws passed during the tax year have been held to apply to all transactions taking place within that tax year, including transactions that occurred prior to the enactment of the law.

Since this law is a tax law, it may apply to all bonus payments occurring since Jan 1, 2009.

Many, many tax laws are targeted at business entities or individual taxpayers based on group situations, for example, taxing capital gains at a lower rate than earned income (with which I have some problems.

Consequently, trying to get back bonuses given out in 2009 using the tax law may very well be the best method of recovery. I think that Dodd's amendment or Wyden/Snow might have had more problems, but then, trials and arbitrations don't always turn out how the lawyers think they will.

[christx30]

42. Let's hit you up

with a retroactive 90% tax bill and see if you don't feel like you are being punished for something that isn't illegal. Like, say... accepting a bonus from where you work. They probably don't even think that the TARP funds and the bonuses are related issues.
Just wait until the repubs are in power again (I'd say around 2032), and they want some pay back.
Who are they going to use the IRS to punish?
We may be angry at AIG, but this is a powerful thing. And it needs to be looked at very carefully.

[TankLV]

73. again - "logic" from texASS...

EPIC FAIL...

[CAcyclist]

39. I've been saying for years we need a new 90% tax bracket

Maybe this will make people more comfortable with the idea. Having such a stratification of the incredibly wealthy to the average person is by itself destabilizing to the country

[Zavulon]

66. This makes me less comfortable with the idea.

I think 90% is too much anyway, but in this case it's clearly targeted at an unpopular group of people.

[Generator]

40. I have fucking had it on this AIG bullshit

I really have. We have started wars and tortured people and shit all over our civil liberties, and this, this is the big worry about being "unconstitutional." This country has lost me. THIS is why I'd rather watch Octo-Mom-it has as much relevance than the endless propaganda one point talking story that dominates our "media" and national discourse. I have no more outrage. I lost my outrage at the suspending of habeas corpus and the testicle slicing done in my name, but oh well.

[B2G]

43. You all do realize

that this will apply to all household incomes over 250,000, right? It has nothing to do with the size of the bonus, etc.

If you & your spouse make over 250,000 and you receive any bonus at all, it will be essentially taken away from you by the government.

Just want to clarify what's going on here.

[Thor_MN]

47. If true, that would shoot down that whole "bill of attainder" arguement

and while I don't necessarily have strong feelings on either side of this concept, I don't have any friends or family that make over $250K a year, so.... I guess I don't see a problem with that?

[B2G]

52. Interesting thought process there

The Congress can pass punative tax legislation since it doesn't affect you.

I don't know anyone who would benefit from stem cell research, so who gives a shit? No one I know has aids, so screw funding the research. All of my friends have healthcare, so why should I worry about uninsured little kids?

[Thor_MN]

55. You really consider those to be equivalent outcomes?

Hey, you're the next lucky contest on "Beat the unfortunate!!"

Behind Door number 1, we have a $250K+ per year job, but you won't get much in the way of bonuses. Door number 2 is infection with HIV. Curtain 3 is a disease that might be cured by stem cell research someday. Box number 4 is the loss of your job, leaving your children with no healthcare.

Which would one chose? Decisions, decisions....

I believe there has been more than enough legislation favoring the affluent and the powerful over the last eight years, maybe it's time for some legislation that favors the people that you use as arguements?

[B2G]

57. You don't seem to get it

This is legislation aimed at a particular group of individuals. It's a dangerous predecent. Do you think we're going to be in power forever?

[Thor_MN]

60. I know exactly what it is about.

Taking back taxpayer money from a bunch of over-privileged assholes. Why are you in favor of paying bonus for poor performanace?

You don't think that taxing capital gains at a lower rate doesn't target a particular group of individuals? Congress passes legislation that targets groups of individuals all the time.

[B2G]

61. I'm not in favor of paying for poor performance

At all. But the AIG boneses were for retention. AIG signed a contract with them early last year. Their job was to wind down the portfolios so they can close the division. They were only paid after the work was done right. TARP didn't mention them as a condition of receiving funds. The stimiulus bill explictly allowed for them. To tax them like this strikes me as a punitive use of government's power. That to me is abusive and distrubing.

Sorry, that's just MHO.

[TankLV]

75. And WE have already been screwed for YEARS by the REPUKE CONGRESS!!!

the precident has already been SET long ago and this is just trying to CORRECT THAT WRONG!!!

I can't believe people like you are spewing this crap argument...

[TankLV]

74. The REPUKE congress has ALREADY passed punative tax legislation on me..this just CORRECTS that WRONG

EPIC FAIL!!!

try again...

[treestar]

77. If I get rich enough for it to affect me

I'll gladly pay it.

[high density]

44. It's never going to pass the senate

and if it does, Obama will veto it. This is just a political maneuver.

[Alhena]

46. That's what Stephonapolous said today- no chance it becomes law

[ellie]

50. WOO HOO!

Them's the breaks!

[ProgressIn2008]

54. Empty theater. "Obama Uneasy About Tax on Bonuses" now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/us/politics/21bailout.html?ref=business

Theater, nothing more. The rich and powerful in DC are outraged, I tell ya. Outraged.

[defendandprotect]

62. Windfall profits tax . . . and it should also be on ExxonMobil's huge earnings . . .

[Staneck]

65. We the people should demand that the bonuses be returned

Or taxed at 90% at the minimum.
Thankfully ,the President has moved quickly to find legal avenues to achieve this. Kudos.

[Zavulon]

67. To me, this is really scary.

As undeserved as the bonuses might be, they were the result of perfectly legal contracts approved by the federal government - and now they're being confiscated because they're unpopular?

This is a horrible precedent. Just wait until the Repugs are back in charge. Imagine that Michael Moore makes a movie criticizing a Repug administration but lets one minor factual error slip, and the Repugs decide to tax any "misleading, slanderous propaganda films" at a rate of 90%.

This is a horrifying slope we're on. We fucked up by approving the bonuses, let's make sure it doesn't happen again - but this 90% tax scares the shit out of me.

The bonuses may be bullshit, but if the employees legally fulfulled their end of the bargain we should just chalk the bonuses as a mistake and move on. Politicians love to say that pork is justified because "it's such a small fraction of the overall bill and the cost of doing business," but these bonuses are a much smaller fraction of the stimulus AIG is getting. We fucked up, some people made out like bandits. That sucks, but the government pisses away money on equally worthless bullshit every day. Let's just learn from it and move on.

Besides, with the man-hours cost of congressmen / senators / lawyers / investogators / President Obama / scores of other workers poring over these bonuses, looking into every aspect of them, debating them and drafting legislation regarding them, I'd like to know what it's going to cost us to get the money back. Is the taxpayer getting a good value for the money spent on all of this posturing and outrage?

Now since I know some people here won't agree with me, should I bother to request that any answers to this be civil, or would I be wasting my time?

[Summermoondancer]

76. If it were

only for execs I might agree...but many low paid employees got those bonuses too and I do not agree with punishing those not at fault for the errors of the company. Taxing AIG might work, but it will surely bankrupt the company which we the taxpayers now own 80% of. I am not thrilled about the prospect of taxpayers owning a company that is going bankrupt.