In September of 2008, the Federal government orchestrated an $85 billion bailout of the insurance company American International Group, better known as AIG. The move was part of an effort to shore up the faltering financial sector. At the time, conservatives blasted the bailout as an expensive, foolish, and meddling experiment to “fix” the economy. Now that 6 months have passed since the initial round of bailouts, we can plainly see the folly of such an experiment. To make matters worse, AIG has just paid out millions in bonuses to many of their executives. This obviously touched off a flurry of hearings and press conferences in Washington D.C. to enable the politicians to feign their moral outrage over the payment of bonuses.

The news out of DC this week has been a constant drumbeat of anger, and calls for the names of the executives to be made public. The House has even voted to tax the bonuses at an outrageous rate of 90%. As a side note, does anyone honestly believe that Congress will stop at the selective bonuses of these executives? When does Congress ever abolish a tax? They more often than not simply expand the tax to include more taxpayers. When Congressman Barney Frank pompously pontificated about his desire to make the names of those receiving bonuses public, AIG CEO Ed Liddy responded by cautioning Frank about the danger of publicizing the names. He then read a couple of recorded death threats aimed at the executives of AIG, to which the “omniscient” Frank replied that he would take it under advisement. Sadly, for Frank and many other politicians, the visions of headlines cloud the very real possibility of bodily injury to the executives.

The hypocrisy of the politicians reigns supreme in Washington. Last month, the “stimulus” bill was pushed through Congress without any chance for real debate. It was rushed through so hurriedly, that the majority of Congress did not even have the chance to read it. Maybe if they had read the bill, they would have noticed a small addition to the bill that stated that any contractual bonuses that were promised before February 11 of this year, would be allowed to be paid out. Who added this tiny amendment to the bill? Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut was the author of the amendment. Please allow another side not here as well. The 2 top recipients of campaign donations from AIG last year were Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama. Dodd admitted that he had added the amendment to the bill, but that an administration official had applied pressure to ensure that it did get added to the final version of the bill. So Congress passes a bill that specifically allows these bonuses to be paid, and then when it becomes public knowledge that the bonuses are being paid, the same congressman arrogantly declare their moral outrage.

The White House was questioned about how could they allow these bonuses to be paid out. Their response was that the Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, had only learned of the bonuses last week and was working to prevent them from being paid. The truth is that Geithner had known for at least 2 weeks, and AIG had been working with Federal officials for at least the past 3 months on these very same bonuses. Either the Federal government does not pass along information to the Treasury Secretary, or they knew about it and waited for it become public knowledge to milk every last ounce of political capital out of the outrage that they created.

This week the House of Representatives passed the latest, pork laden “stimulus” package that will cost a little more than $800 billion. The bill, written entirely by congressional Democrats, passed with no Republicans voting for the measure. The Republican opposition to the bill stemmed from the inclusion of billions of dollars in earmarks and pork projects that have absolutely nothing to do with stimulating the economy. For example, there is about $75 million for smoking cessation programs. Aren’t we going to need more people smoking, and paying cigarette taxes, to pay for this massive spending bill?

For most of Americans, the sheer size of an $800 billion spending bill is beyond our understanding. Let’s put it into terms that we can understand a bit easier. The government could send every household with children under the age of 18 a check for $22,445 and that would be equal to what they are proposing to spend on this “stimulus” bill. If we expanded to every family in the U.S., each family would receive a check for $10,520. How much would the economy be affected if they sent the taxpayers a check, instead of sending billions to their cronies?

Republicans are not the only ones raising serious questions about this farce known as a stimulus package. The Congressional Budget Office has weighed in with their analysis, and have questioned why we need to rush to pass this bill, when more than 75% of the spending takes place in 2010 and beyond. If this bill is so desperately needed to pull us out of the economic doldrums, why is the majority of the money being spent in the future and not now? Could it be that they know that this package will have a zero effect on turning the economy around? The President claims that this proposal will create as many as 4 million jobs, but if you do the math those 4 million jobs will cost the taxpayers more than $206,000 each.

The CEO’s of the big three automakers arrived in Washington to continue to beg for billions of taxpayer dollars to help bail them out of their financial woes. At the same time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has started talking about another $500 billion “stimulus” package. Cities and states are lining up on Capitol Hill with their hands out claiming that financial ruin is on the horizon without a federal government bailout. Secretary Paulson seems eager to hand out billions, if not trillions, more to any and all corporate takers. By some accounts, the bailout promises of Paulson and Bernanke total $7.7 trillion. It amazes me that very few appear to be asking the obvious question; who is going to pay all of this back?

At least one congressman is appalled by the bailout frenzy that has gripped Washington of late. Texas Representative Louie Gohmert has come up with a cheaper alternative. Gohmert has proposed two options. The first proposal is to make it so no one pays any income tax for 2008. Any income tax that has already been collected would be returned to the taxpayer and they would not pay any income tax for the rest of the year. Gohmert says in his press release,"My idea may sound unconventional, but it is trillions of dollars cheaper than our current course. My proposal actually relies on our nation's founding democratic principles that made us the greatest nation in the world before anyone ever heard of Mr. Henry Paulson!"   Gohmert’s philosophy is simple. Why not give the money directly to the consumers who could use it to buy a new car, pay off credit cards, catch up on a mortgage, or make a down payment on a house? We are not talking about a stimulus check of $1000; this would be several thousand dollars for each taxpayer. The estimated tax revenues for 2008 are $1.2 trillion. Contrast that with the promised bailouts of $7.7 trillion, which plan would make more sense?

The Congressman’s second proposal is a bit more realistic. He proposes that we take the $350 billion already allocated for the financial bailout but not yet used, and give everyone a tax holiday for January and February 2009. This would not just be income tax, but also FICA. No one would pay federal income tax or FICA for January and February. Take a gander at your pay stub and calculate how much the government takes from your paycheck for federal income tax and FICA every pay period. How much more money would that inject into your personal budget? It would free up the consumers to pay down debt, make the home renovations they have been delaying, invest, or just take the family vacation that was postponed due to the economy. Surprisingly, the cost for this proposal is below the $350 billion left from the original $700 billion bailout. American Solutions, a conservative think tank, has calculated the numbers and reports that each month the federal government collects $101.6 billion in income taxes, and $65.6 billion in FICA. The 2 month total for Gohmert’s plan is $334.4 billion, a little more than $15 billion less than the Treasury Secretary’s $350 billion.

In remembrance of the first Thanksgiving, I thought that it would be appropriate to take a look back at what the Pilgrims were thankful for and what they had learned in their first few years in “The New World”. The story often told throughout the liberal academia is that the inept Pilgrims celebrated Thanksgiving by holding a feast in honor of the Native Americans for their help in surviving their new surroundings. A look at the actual writings of Governor William Bradford sheds a slightly different light on the real story of Thanksgiving.

When the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, they had entered into a contract that stipulated that they would share everything that was harvested with the community at large. All property was community property. All crops were stored in a central storehouse for the entire community to share. We all know the story of what life was like during that first winter in the “New World”. Many succumbed to disease and the cold temperatures of New England. Bradford realized that the “social experiment” of collectivism had failed. He quickly reorganized the community into a free market society. In his words, “young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without [being paid] that was thought injustice.” Bradford understood that the incentive to work hard to reap the rewards of your labor was lost under a socialist society.

The Pilgrims learned that in order to not only survive but also to succeed in their new home they needed freedom; freedom to work in a vocation of their choosing, that would provide for their families and their futures. The Pilgrims would not sit idly by and watch their neighbors starve to death if their crops did not come in; they would help where they could, but they expected each man to provide for his family. They discovered that the harvest was much greater under the free market system than the harvest seen under the socialist system.

Another aspect of the Thanksgiving story that is conveniently forgotten is the simple fact that the Pilgrims were giving thanks to their Creator for His grace in providing a bountiful harvest and his protection. In our world of political correctness there is a fear of mentioning anything that could resemble a Christian reference. Of course, educators are hamstrung by the notion of separation of church and state. The fear of mentioning God in the classroom has led to the edited version of our country’s origins. The Pilgrims fled England because of religious persecution. They desired a country where they could worship God in a manner that they wanted. This desire is what led to the statement in our Constitution that the government would make no law hindering a religion or establish a state religion. In my copy of our founding documents, I have been unable to find where it prohibits the mention of God’s name in our schools. How does a teacher accurately discuss the Declaration of Independence in class when it mentions the Creator?

Since early September, when the political elite in Washington informed us of the dire need to bailout the financial markets, we have see a building tide of industries, states, and even cities clamoring for their version of a bailout from the federal government. The “experts” in Congress promised us, that the bailout would shore up the financial markets and we would all be better off. Now that the markets have continued to drop, congressional leaders response is that we need to bailout more companies.

Representative Barney Frank was asked when the bailouts would stop and his response was as confusing as the clamor for government bailouts. Frank claimed that the bailouts would stop when they stopped working. Maybe Mr. Frank has been too busy with his reelection campaign to notice that the bailout has not worked. In fact, most economists believe that the bailout accentuated the problem. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has dropped an additional 3000 points since the bailout that was going to save us all was passed.

This week, executives from the “Big Three” automakers were on Capitol Hill to try to convince lawmakers of their need for a bailout of their own. After the hearings, congressional leaders held a press conference to explain their inability to come to any agreement on a bailout. Their explanation was what we have come to expect from Washington politicians. They shifted the blame to the automakers, not for their failing companies, but for failing to present them a plan on which they could agree. They set a date of December 2 for them to present plans for a bailout on which they could come to a consensus.

Does Congress believe that if they just throw money at the problem that the crisis will just disappear? This has become the normal routine in Washington. Whatever the problem, politicians just throw money at the problem, but don’t change any of the contributing factors that led to the problem. Look at government funded education. For years the public school system has been a breeding ground for failure or mediocrity at best. Government’s answer is to throw more money at the schools but never changing how or what they teach. Then they are surprised when the results are the same.