Congress to debate passage of $700 billion “Taxpayer Bailout Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.” OK, maybe that’s not entirely true, but they should consider it. After all, it certainly can’t be worse than what is already being proposed, right? Just consider that with the unprecedented government intervention and unlawful appropriations of the public monies we have endured over the last couple of weeks to bailout several private financial institutions and lenders that failed because of poor, if not corrupt business practices and an overabundance of government meddling in the private sector, the best idea our friends in Washington DC can come up with to solve this ever-growing financial crisis is a $700 billion bailout package to save the companies that screwed us over in the first place. 

If nothing else, this just goes to show how really out of touch with reality the Washington elite are. And it is why I am proposing an alternative to this $700 billion monstrosity, one that will actually prove a benefit to the economy and the taxpayer.

So, what is this solution to calm the perfect storm presently ravaging our economy? It is a “bailout” for the taxpayers to the tune of $700 billion.   The original “plan” really wasn’t my idea. I first saw it posted on a fellow Townhall blogger’s site, which he titled “A Tongue in Cheek Plan for Fixing the Economy.” He gave the credit to a “Mr. T. J. Birkenmeier, A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic.” I liked it and thought about it and felt there was room for improvement. I asked the blogger if I could repost this and he said yes. But, after thinking about this proposal and doing a bit of research I have come up with a slightly different version of this plan. I will keep it simple, because there is no need to complicate it.

According to the IRS 138,893,908 individual tax returns were filed for FY 2007, but for the sake of simplicity lets round that up to 140 million.

The “Taxpayer Bailout Economic Stimulus Act of 2008” will would consist of a one-time $700 billion refund being sent in equal amounts back to all eligible citizens. Period. No fancy formulas or breakdowns of this tax rate or that tax rate - everyone who gets a check gets the same amount, plain and simple. So, what that essentially means is that every person who filed a 2007 individual tax return (form 1040) will receive a one-time lump-sum payout of $5,000 to do with what they please. That’s it. Easy, right?

There would be one catch. Before getting their checks all eligible recipients would have to read the Constitution of the United States, Milton Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom,” as well as “Economic Freedom and Interventionism” and “Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition” by Ludwig von Mises. For those who are unfamiliar and bristled at the title of the last book by Mises, it refers to the Classic or Traditional Liberalism of the kind espoused by the Founding fathers of our nation. The bill would mandate the reading and testing of these works in the public school systems at least twice between beginning middle school and graduating high school. It would eliminate federal withholding for “income” tax purposes and all capital gains for a minimum of two years. It would also require that the Fed seek approval from Congress prior to printing any money, and that it report to Congress on a bi-monthly basis the estimated amount of liquid cash in the national monetary system.

Eligible recipients would then log on to a special and secure government website and, after creating their account by entering their unique taxpayer ID and coded password, take one online test each on the Constitution as well as on each book, and a final cumulative test on the general economic principles espoused within these great works as well as a comprehensive analysis on the Constitutional limitations on government. Immediately upon passing all the tests the recipient’s check would be mailed or electronically deposited, if so desired. This would ensure that all recipients had a solid foundation for understanding at the very least, the basic principles of liberty, free market economics, fiscal responsibility of the individual and government, that the proper respective roles of government and individual citizens in a free republic.

Such a proposal would be far more beneficial to the economy and to the republic than would the current government plan, if for no other reason than that the $700 billion government plan is far too expensive for its intended purpose and is also very, very stupid. But, given how we ended up in this mess, what should we expect from a government conceived and managed “solution” except incompetence, criminal behavior, and unadulterated stupidity? The “Taxpayer Bailout Economic Stimulus Act of 2008” is a far superior solution because, simply put, it is not stupid. It makes perfect sense for a number of reasons: 

First, this proposal is not a bailout. It is either a refund or an inheritance, depending upon how you look at it (just think about the amount of money the IRS confiscated from your families since the Federal Income Tax Act of 1913. 

Second, if you want to pass an economic stimulus package that will actually help the overall economy, said package ought to enable the recipient to do something significant. The recent stimulus check I received, while appreciated didn’t go nearly as far as is needed for its intended purposes. A substantial amount of monies returned to the people would have created the desired effect, but $1,200 when gas is at $4.00 a gallon… well, you get the idea.

Third, given the current situation it makes far more sense to stabilize the economy from the bottom up and not from the top down. Gove the money to the people who will decide where their confidence is in the general market and invest or purchase commodities and goods accordingly. For example, the primary thrust of Secretary Paulson’s argument for a top-down bailout of banks and financial institutions is that under the heavy burden of such vast amounts of bad debt, as the crisis is prolonged the fears of customers and traders will manifest themselves in runs on the banks and financial institutions and will ultimately result in crashing of the collective value of all of these companies, and hence the entire financial system will collapse completely in an economic domino effect. This argument is nothing more than fear-mongering, because it overlooks the simple fact that money in a free market system is equivalent to security, an so if given the money the people who pay that money in the first place will feel more secure (as in they will know they will not be going hungry and will be able to get to work…). When they feel financially secure, they will spend money, either on consumer goods or investing in stocks and commodities, and right now there are many bargains to be had on Wall Street. 

Large numbers of people buying stocks in troubled institutions actually does make sense. Why? Because you generally want to buy something like stock when it is cheap and hold it as it accrues value. T be sure, people would be buying that financial stock up immediately – as they are even now because they know that instinctively buying such stock now is a good bet to make more money later. With waves of people purchasing and therefore by default showing confidence in the overall soundness of the economy and the free market, Wall Street would rally and the value of all companies, public and privately traded would increase, the economy would expand, job would be created due to the affordability of innovation and we would soon find ourselves once again in cyclical upswing, and all without unnecessary government intervention and unlawful nationalization of sectors of the economy or unconstitutional bailouts of private companies. 

Fourth, sending large amounts of money directly to the people instead of to the failing banks and financial businesses is entirely Constitutional and sensible and has a far greater probability of succeeding. Why? Because, in essence, you and I are the economy (read the books…). Such action would truly be supportive of free market capitalism by empowering the consumer and letting the market dictate from there without unlawful manipulation by quasi-government agencies (cough! The Fed) to create artificial conditions conducive to the instability and collapses we are now witnessing because the government wants to perpetuate the upswing cycle and wholly avoid the downswing cycle. Such efforts to force markets and economies to do things and perform in ways that against they nature will never succeed and will only make the eventual downside more severe. Talk to the former Soviet planners about that.

Finally, such an action would boost confidence not only in the economy but also in government for finally realizing that it was the primary reason things are so messed up and for having the sense to trust the people and do the right thing. Bailing out massive corporations that are possibly going to be unresponsive to the injection of cash is just plain stupid. There is no reason whatsoever to appropriate hundreds of billions of dollars for the government to buy bad debt when at the same time there is plenty of reason to spend one-seventh of the current proposed amount and enable those individuals who are struggling to pay off those debts, and by solving their individual financial crises solve by default the collective crises of the larger economy by bringing the debt ratios of the various financial institutions into proper alignment and thereby allowing for the market to do what it alone does best – correct itself.

So, if you are a person who thinks they could use a spare $5,000 maybe you ought to copy this proposal and send it to your representatives in Washington DC before they give a whole lot more of your money to the wrong people and make things even worse.

I was out of the country when Al Qaeda hit New York, DC, and rural Pennsylvania. My wife and I were on vacation in London, and had just come up out of the Tube having spent the day at the London Museum. We saw crowds of people rushing to the newsstands grabbing the evening papers. It was obvious to us that something was going on; yet when I got a copy of the paper in my hands and saw the front cover with the image of an airliner smashing through the North Tower, I was speechless. We stood there and read for a few minutes and then ran to our hotel and promptly turned on the TV. There we watched the images over and over again. We wept and stared in disbelief. 

At the time all I, knew was that the planes that hit the Twin Towers had taken off from Boston. I assumed that they were the US Airways Shuttles from Boston to New York and Washington that both had been hijacked and had been flown into the towers.   The news channels did not have all the information and were only able to report what they could, and there were lots of unanswered questions about the attacks, and lots of missing information to put the whole thing together. 

As we watched the coverage from our London hotel room we also tried frantically to call home to our families in Dallas and Boston, which took hours to get through. Still thinking it was the Shuttles that had taken down the towers, I reflected and mourned for those crews and those passengers. I mourned for those families whose loved ones would never be coming home again. And, I thought about how easily it could have been me on one of those planes. 

You see, at the time I was an airline pilot living in Boston, based out of New York LaGuardia, and I commuted to LGA several times each week via the Shuttle. I knew the crews. I knew the passengers. I thought, like everyone else, “How could this have happened?” And in the wake of the sham that was the 9-11 Commission, half of whom were complicit in enabling the atmosphere that allowed the attacks to be executed, I still wonder. Today I watched, and wondered and reflected. And I grew angry and was moved beyond words. I don’t quite know how to describe the experience. 

My little girl was running and playing and laughing around the family room, blissfully unaware of what I was watching and what it meant for her future. I think it was precisely that which weighed so heavily on my heart this morning. I looked at her precious face and held her and hugged her, and I promised her that I would always be there to protect her. I thought about what kind of monsters would wantonly kill masses of people in the name of their religion, who would deprive children like my precious daughter of their parents – and parents of their children. I thought about our troops overseas and their families praying for their safe return. I thought about what the future holds. Never again – this can never happen again.

As an Army veteran, a former cop and airline pilot, security is something that is always on my mind. I have lived my life in code yellow since I was 18 years old, and will until the day I die. If necessary I will run to my country’s defense. And, when necessary I will disagree vehemently with my government and protest loudly when they screw things up. They screwed up royally before 9/11 with their heads buried in the sand and passing up opportunity after opportunity to get Osama Bin Laden when they knew he was a threat. Of course, not too many could have predicted something on the scale of 9/11, but that’s the point – that is what we are up against. Now is not the time for complacency. Not now, not ever. 

Perhaps that is what bothered me the most on this seventh anniversary of the attack of September 11, 2001: the fact that so many Americans have once again become complacent in the face of the threats of terrorism, while so many others have willingly surrender so much to arbitrary government authority for the promise of protection from terrorists. There is a delicate balance that must be maintained, and a certain amount of trust that we have to place in our government officials to keep our nation safe from those who would harm us. But that trust has to go both ways: government must respect our Liberty, and we must never relinquish any of our rights, any of our Liberty for the promise of security or prosperity. Not now, not ever; because history has shown time and again that once Liberty is relinquished to government, it is seldom, if ever given back to the people.

Complacency in the face of danger is fatal – always. This November we will elect our President, Senators and Representatives in Congress who will be the ones who will address these serious issues and will be charged with the heavy burden of responsibility of protecting our national interests and security. 

As you tuck your precious children into bed tonight and look at their innocent little faces, ask yourself what kind of world you want them to inherit. Ask yourself whether you want a President who will not back down from their threats and will pursue them to the ends of the earth, or one who will seek understand them so that he can better empathize with their grievances against us. Ask yourself if you want a President who has been to war and knows its horror all too well, or one who views men and women in uniform as bloodthirsty fascist thugs. Ask yourself if you want a President who has personally suffered at the hands of evildoers of the same ilk as Bin Laden, or one who thinks he can charm them into abandoning their Jihad? Look at your children and think about these things. 

One choice will cost us in the short term and will enable us to preserve our Liberty and way of life and to pass it on to our children. The other choice could cost us everything. It’s not just about where you were on September 11, 2001; it’s about whether or not enough of us remember and make the choice to make sure such atrocities never, ever, happen again.

http://www.dfwtex.com/html/never_forget.html

I remember, and I will never forget.