Peter Heck - columns - 2008 Articles

Archive

Subscribe to this blog's feed

2008 Articles

Monday, December 22 2008

-Let's Bail Out the Taxpayer 122208

It was one of the silliest moments of the presidential election when Republican John McCain announced he was suspending his campaign to rush back to Washington to help solve a suddenly serious financial crisis. Never mind that this crisis had been building for years thanks to foolish monetary policies encouraged by our government. They thought it wise to give exorbitant loans to people with terrible credit and no reasonable ability to repay those loans. But rather than pointing out that this “crisis” was the logical result of ignorant government policy (Google the Community Reinvestment Act and be amazed), John McCain contributed to the hysteria and helped bring us the foolish “Bank Bailout Heist of 2008.”

Many Americans have become understandably disgusted with the extraordinary amount of money being spent in Iraq…particularly because we entered the conflict on the basis of faulty intelligence. The government screwed up, and taxpayers are being forced to pay the bill. The five year cost of the Iraq conflict, according to the liberal blog Think Progress, stands at $648 billion. But the one-day cost of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (the bailout) was $700 billion.

What is most appalling about the Paulson-Bernanke bailout plan is its ineffectiveness. Half of the money that the U.S. government lifted from the taxpayer has been spent, and what have been its fruits? Deepening recession, depressed markets, and an increasing number of corporations approaching the government with outstretched hands demanding a bailout similar to that which the financial industry received. And even after acknowledging the bailout plan wasn’t going to work, President Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson (the architect of this grand scheme) still plans on spending the last $350 billion of our money. Throwing good money after bad has become a specialty of Washington politicians.

But at least one representative wants to try something different, and its time that Americans shed ideological labels and get behind his plan. Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas has come up with an innovative and incredibly logical idea: bailout the taxpayers. Rather than spend the last $350 billion of taxpayer money in the same pitifully ineffective way the first $350 billion was spent, why not use it to fund the operation of government for two months, giving every American taxpayer January and February off from paying any federal taxes? That’s right: you, the American taxpayer, would pay no federal income or FICA (social security and Medicare) taxes for two months. He calls it a tax holiday. I call it fantastic.

Since the average American pays roughly a third of his income to the federal government, an easy formula for calculating what you would make in this “holiday” is to take your gross pay and multiply it by 0.66. So, a family making $50,000 a year would get nearly $3,000 of their money back.

What would that do? Well, it wouldn’t pay for Wall Street bonuses. Instead it would spend the $350 billion in a way that would allow the real engine of the American economy—the American worker—to get back on his feet. As Gohmert said, “Those who can’t catch up on their mortgage [will be able to]. They’ll be able to buy stock that they can’t currently buy. New cars bought, new homes, new buildings being built.” And rather than the foolish concept of letting a Washington bureaucrat dole out money through central planning, the people would be able to spend it as they wish because people “always do better with their own money than the government does.” After $648 billion in Iraq and $350 billion flushed down the bank toilet…Amen.

But would the government be able to function without our tax money for those two months? According to American Solutions, the American taxpayers pay $101 billion in income taxes and $66 billion in FICA taxes every month. That’s $167 billion for January, $167 billion for February of 2009 for a grand total of $334 billion. There’s $350 billion of our taxes sitting there as a result of the bailout bill waiting to be spent. So, which is better? Throwing it down the same garbage disposal they did with the first half, or funding government for two months and giving the taxpayer a much deserved bailout? This is a no-brainer.

Unfortunately, the power of lobbyists, special interests, and ideological labels in Washington is a lot to overcome. So much so that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is unlikely to let Representative Gohmert’s plan even come to the floor for a vote. That is unless the people—the one power greater than all the inner Washington elites—rise up, contact their Democrat and Republican Congressmen and demand a bailout for the ones who truly deserve it: the American taxpayers.

Peter W. Heck

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 08:47 pm | Permalink | 1 Comment | Email

Monday, December 15 2008

-Bankruptcy Not Bailout 121508

I almost didn’t call him back. Last week, I was surprised to see a message from USA Today columnist Rick Hampson in my daily email, seeking an interview to discuss the Big Three automaker bailout bill in Washington. Hampson said he was doing a piece on Kokomo’s reaction to the proceedings and was told that I would have a ‘unique’ opinion. In other words, USA Today was looking for someone to represent the anti-bailout crowd.

It is no secret that I have been a staunch opponent of the Big Three bailout, but I was still hesitant. And no, not because I feared a backlash from an automaker town. As I eventually told Hampson, people in central Indiana don’t have the knee-jerk reactions that they tend to have along the coasts. We typically give those we disagree with the benefit of the doubt and don’t consider them monsters…at least until we’ve heard them out.

No, my hesitation came from a fear that my remarks would be, for the sake of space, edited down to a mere line or two in an attempt to portray a “conflict” in Kokomo. But considering that an opportunity to talk to USA Today doesn’t come around everyday, I did the interview despite those reservations. I spent 35 minutes talking to Mr. Hampson about the rationale behind the position that a bailout is bad for the Big Three, bad for the workers, bad for Kokomo, and certainly bad for the taxpayer. I explained to him that beyond just the reality that taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to bail out failing businesses (no matter how large), a bailout will actually hasten the demise of the automakers while bankruptcy would not. Evidently, USA Today wasn’t interested in my motivations, but rather just wanted the money statement to show a contrasting view since all they printed was, “I hate to say it, but those companies have to suffer the consequences. A market without failure is no market at all.” That’s a true statement, but it would have been nice if Hampson had included the reality that I take this position for the well being of our friends, neighbors, and community in general.

The notion that a $14 billion ‘loan’ would help what ails the Big Three is as silly as it is sad. GM alone is bleeding $2 billion a month. Even if they received the full $14 billion themselves, that would have kept their head above water for a maximum of seven months. That means seven more months of anxiety for working families, seven more months of a failed business strategy, seven more months of out of touch, incompetent executives like Ford’s Mullally telling struggling workers that he deserves $25 million a year in salary just to end up in this same place. Taking $14 billion out of taxpayers’ pockets for that is the very definition of waste.

Contrary to its stigma, bankruptcy does not mean the end of companies. Ask the airline industry, which went through multiple bankruptcies and has emerged with a better business plan, better management, and has retained the vast majority of its employees. Without Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, companies and workers are subject to many dangers and uncertainties that could be avoided. When you consider that a bailout will only prolong, not prevent, the bankruptcy proceedings of these companies, the logical question is…why wait?

The thought that any American, particularly one who lives in central Indiana, wants to see the Big Three collapse is absurd. Personally, with a father-in-law whose retirement is through Chrysler, and a dearly loved Granny relying on her retiree healthcare from GM, I have a vested interest in seeing these companies survive and remain solvent. I love my American made Jeep just as I loved my American made Chevy Cavalier before it. That is why I adamantly oppose a taxpayer bailout that is unprincipled, unethical, and unwise. Bankruptcy will save jobs…a bailout will destroy them.

Peter W. Heck

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 08:46 pm | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email

Tuesday, December 02 2008

-Radicals Among Us 120208

The homosexual lobby is not peaceful; it is not amicable. This is a radical movement that seeks to force us all to accept their agenda, even if it means stripping us of our freedom of speech and religious expression. If this undeniable truth has not become painfully obvious to you over the last four weeks, allow me to be the first to welcome you to planet Earth.

Consider this hypothetical: I go into McDonalds and request a taco supreme. The clerk looks at me oddly and then informs me that McDonalds does not offer tacos on their menu. I acknowledge such, but I want one regardless. The clerk encourages me to go down the road a mile to Taco Bell (where it is offered) to satisfy my craving. Outraged, I demand to see the manager and begin threatening McDonalds to make me a taco supreme. The manager calmly tries to inform me that McDonalds does not have the ingredients or expertise in making taco supremes but they’d be happy to offer anything else on the menu. Livid, I leave McDonalds and promptly file a lawsuit against them alleging discrimination.

Consider further that the government sides with me. They inform McDonalds that they must change their entire menu around to meet the desires of any customer that comes through their door. If someone wants sushi…McDonalds must offer sushi. If someone wants cotton candy…McDonalds better whip up a batch. Seem logical?

Now recognize that this isn’t hypothetical at all. It is exactly what just happened to the online Christian-oriented dating website eHarmony.com. The site was sued by a homosexual named Eric McKinley because they wouldn’t set him up with another man, despite the fact that eHarmony was not equipped to make such matches. They didn’t refuse McKinley access to their site…they just said ‘men hooking up with men’ was not on their menu of options.

Stunningly, the Attorney General of New Jersey sided with McKinley and the Division on Civil Rights took action against eHarmony to bully them into a settlement. The site has now been forced to agree to completely alter their business model and cater to the desires of homosexuals. And now that the precedent is set, eHarmony should prepare to start offering a number of new services: married men seeking girlfriends, women seeking multiple partners, men seeking barnyard animals. Who are they to judge someone else’s sexual preferences, after all?

Sadly this is nothing new. Despite the fact that this case is generating more attention, this type of legal bullying is exactly what the homosexual movement has been engaged in for some time.

Ask New Mexico’s Elaine Huguenin how tolerant this movement is. Elaine and her husband are Christians who own a small photography business. A homosexual couple wanted to hire Elaine to photograph their “commitment ceremony.” Elaine graciously declined, stating that the message communicated in the ceremony ran contrary to her consciously held religious beliefs. The lesbian couple sued the business, and the state of New Mexico fined the business for violating “non-discriminatory” policies. In other words, at the behest of the homosexual lobby, the state said to the Christian couple: violate your convictions or be fined.

Ask the Catholic Charities of Boston who for over 100 years helped orphans find adoptive, loving homes in Massachusetts. That is until the homosexual lobby sued to force the Christian organization to violate their religious standards and place children in homes of homosexual couples. Catholic Charities shut down their adoption agency. Evidently, it was preferable to the homosexuals that orphans be left in foster care than have their agenda thwarted.

Ask doctors Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton of San Diego who were sued for not providing in-vitro fertilization to a lesbian due to their religious convictions. The doctors had referred the lesbian couple to a physician who would be willing to complete the procedure, but that wasn’t good enough. The state of California sided with the lesbians and the doctors were told to perform the procedure or face the consequences.

Gay marriage exists in two states: Vermont and Massachusetts. In both of those states, the decision to allow such came not from the people…it was forced upon the people by a handful of left-leaning radicals on the courts. When the choice has been left up to the people in 30 states, all 30 states have said no to the homosexual agenda.

The only people seeking to “cram their morality” down other people’s throats are those on the radical homosexual left who are shoving their immorality in the face of anyone who dares to stand up for traditional morality. Now is not the time to shrink back from this threat to our religious and civil liberties.

To the contrary, it is time to sound the alarm and rise up to stop these radical religious bigots from achieving their ultimate objective: the trampling of our First Amendment.

Peter W. Heck

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 08:43 pm | Permalink | 1 Comment | Email