The AIG story just keeps getting better (in a bad way, that is).  Turns out that the troubled insurance giant, which has so far received more than $180 billion in federal bailout money, cut $218 million in bonus checks after it had been put on the government doll -- far more than the previously reported $165 million.

So what happens now the plan to tax those bonuses by 90%, which the House passed last Thursday? Last week, before the higher bonus amount was known, The Times' editorial board called the tax "confiscatory" and argued that such a measure could make it more difficult for the Obama administration to partner with the private sector to restore credit and fix the economy. It looks like the administration may agree with The Times:

Jared Bernstein, the vice president's economic adviser, used strong wording in an interview on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" to signal that President Obama does not support the 90 percent tax on AIG passed by the House.

"I think the president would be concerned that this bill may have some problems in going too far -- the House bill may go too far in terms of some -- some legal issues, constitutional validity, using the tax code to surgically punish a small group," Bernstein said. "That -- that may be a dangerous way to go."

What do you think about the legislation passed by the House that would heavily tax the AIG bonuses? Take our unscientific poll.