Does Cat Power have a better idea than 90% tax on bailout bonuses? Maybe not.

Back in October, Congressman Walz was scolded by the editorial board of the Star Tribune for voting against the bank bailout bill. He defended his choice in Why I Voted Against the Bailout Bill. One of the things he wrote about the legislation he said no to twice:

It continues to permit excessive CEO compensation by instituting so-called limits on compensation and golden parachutes that are essentially all bark and no bite. As the Washington Post puts it, "executive pay experts said the regulations are too weak to spark major reform in the way companies compensate top officers, and too narrow in scope to change the pay structure that encouraged finance executives in boom times to take on enormous risks."

Enormous bonuses to executives have spurred a public out cry, with Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley going so far as to suggest in a radio interview that "AIG representatives should either “resign, or go commit suicide.” He later called the suggestion rhetoric and that people can recognise that. Since rhetoric is the art of persuasion, we won't disagree with the senator from Iowa.

However, Congress looks to be going ahead with a third alternative to either resignation or suicide. CQPolitics reports in AIG Backlash: 90 Percent Tax on Bonuses Up for House Vote:

While American International Group Inc.’s chief executive says the firm could recover millions in bonuses via voluntary means, that’s not slowing a legislative effort to recoup the money and shift the incentive-based pay structure traditionally used by financial institutions.

The House is scheduled to act Thursday on legislation (H.R. 1586) that would impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses given to highly paid employees not only of AIG, but of all recipients of more than $5 billion in federal bailout funds, a group expected to include about a dozen financial institutions, according to Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel , D-N.Y. Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co. and Citigroup Inc. would likely be among the affected companies.

“I expect to see an overwhelming vote,” House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., told reporters Wednesday afternoon.

The House response, and Senate legislation also likely to see action in the coming days, will largely change the incentive structure for many banks on the receiving end of federal bailout funds.

The bills represent a continuation of a huge shift in the government’s approach to corporate management that began last fall, when the government started to take stakes in private firms. . . .

. . .But for lawmakers barraged with calls and e-mails from critical constituents, the corporate bonuses are part of a larger problem surrounding the troubled institutions — the idea that there is no financial accountability for risk-taking.

As one staffer suggested, it's certainly an I-told-you-so moment for Congressman Walz.

Other friends' recent observations foreshadowed Senator Grassley's rhetoric about what to do about those who received both bailout benjamins and bonuses.  Cat Power has a how-to video. Or maybe not--though certainly a lovely voice. We offer the following video for rhetorical purposes only, in order to point out that today's bill simply isn't an extreme moment of the bonus discourse: