This Time It's Personal

A couple of days ago Sara asked me if I was going to write about AIG, the giant, multiple bailout-fund-receiving insurance company. I said I wouldn't, in part because I'm so sick of hearing about it, but also because I'm sick of writing about the "bailout".

However...

Yesterday, the House of (not so representative) Representatives passed a bill that, on the surface, was aimed at recovering most of the retention bonus money paid to AIG personnel. I was not comfortable with this from the moment I heard about it. I think the first, and natural, reaction to AIG bonuses is for people to feel violated in some way - since taxpayers are funding the bailout and it can be argued that the bonuses were paid with bailout money.

However...

It is not like that bonus money was awarded arbitrarily to the big wigs or given without merit. The money was given to people like you and me as part of their compensation arrangement. It is no different than another business that has to dip into a line of credit in order to meet payroll. The bailout funds are a loan to the recipients. Our government extended that loan. You and I only agreed to it to the extent that we participated in the election process that now allows the clowns to run the circus. If we're going to be mad at somebody, it should be our elected officials -not AIG - and definitely NOT the employees of AIG.

How can I say such a thing? Now, as more details are surfacing, I have discovered that I, too, would be effected by the AIG legislation. The bill stipulates that bonus recipients from any company that received more than $5 billion in bailout money will have to pay a 90% tax. Without going into detail, this legislation would directly penalize me.* I'm just an average worker toiling in the trenches. I am part of the 95% of Americans that were promised no increase in taxes. The bill isn't targeted at some small, elite group of greedy corporate scumbags, as we are being led to believe. The bill effects real people. A lot of real people. It effects your neighbors, your friends, your relatives, and your favorite blogger. 

Think about it - a 90% tax on anything. $19 for two $5 Footlongs at Subway. Ten cents on the dollar is what you get to keep. Work ten years, get paid for one. How is that going to help the economy recover - taking more money out of the wallets of consumers? If you are a tithe-payer as I am, that doesn't leave anything left over to pay bills, feed the family, or buy a hybrid so that I can get President Obama's tax rebate on said automobile. It would be no different than not working at all.

Earn $100, $90 to the government, $10 to the Church = $0 for me

or

Earn $0, $0 to the government, $0 to the Church = $0 for me

I guess it just seems wrong to me that everyone appears to be so much more upset about $200 million (give or take) spent by AIG than they are about the $3 trillion spent by our government. I mean, when the government loaned money to AIG, what did it expect the company to do with it? AIG used some of their $185 billion, $200 million of it, to honor employment agreements. If we're going to start tearing up contracts - and since I won't have any money left after taxes anyway - can I request to have the note on my house shredded as well? (Will that 90% tax revenue be deducted from the total that AIG must one day repay? Or is it in addition to?)

I think the crux of the issue lies in the term "bonus". A bonus is not free, unexpected money, like winning the Power Ball. Bonuses are an important part of an employee's total compensation. Under these rules, An employee that earns $100k in straight salary would not take a hit, but an employee that earns a salary of $50k plus the potential for $50k in bonuses would. The latter would get to keep just $5,000 of his bonus. I would go so far as to argue that "pay for performance" (i.e. bonuses) is in the taxpayer's interest moreso than guaranteed salaries. 

Makes no sense - like a lot of things nowadays.

* I may need to retract this claim at a later time. One source is telling me the House version would only apply to those making more than $250k, which would not include me. However, all of my other sources state otherwise. The jury is still out.

-----

At least one thing went right this week. The TSA successfully identified a very real threat to our national security and subjected the individual to extra security measures at PDX. Enjoy your flight, Congressman.

-----

I'm cutting myself off here. I could go on for hours. This is why I didn't want to blog about it in the first place.

One Common Thread

US Trade Representative Nominee Ron Kirk is the latest friend of Obama to be caught trying to cheat the IRS and the citizens of this country. Am I the only person who find this absolutely hilarious? Not to mention disturbing, comical, egregious and, if I were President Obama, embarrassing. Aren't our friends a reflection of our own character? If all of my friends were drug dealers, it would not be entirely unreasonable to assume that I, too, had dabbled in that most dubious of enterprises.

Raising taxes. Cutting taxes. Evading taxes. Every day it's something different from these model citizens. The only constant is that every day we hear something something to do with taxes.

I have serious doubts that these tax issues would have been resolved had the individuals involved not been nominated. Would they have sought out the IRS to set things right? Would they have continued to conceal their theft?

My favorite part of this article is that Kirk has "agreed to make his payments" on his back taxes, in much the same manner one might "agree" to provide for his child or stop for a crossing train.

What's scary is that these stories represent only the corruption we have heard about. I have a feeling that if one were to pull on the right string, the entire fabric would unravel like the sweater from my previous post.

Obortion

This is old news now, but I'm trying to get rid of my backlog of time-sensitive half-written blog posts.

Brief summary: In one of his first acts as POTUS, President Obama, by executive order, removed the ban that states federal funds cannot in any way be used to support abortion internationally.

I only have two issues with this story:

1) The way it was promoted in the media was that this was a direct shot at President Bush, Jr.; that this act somehow made right the great evil that had transpired under the prior administration. The fact is, as you can read in the full text, the policy dates back to President Reagan. The policy was continued under President Bush, Sr., then lifted with President Clinton, only to be reestablished again with President Bush, Jr. Odds are the ban will be enforced once again in 2013. There's no story here - it is now a Presidential tradition.

2) The part that most upsets me about this story is that our tax dollars are being used to fund ANYTHING in other countries, let alone something so controversial as abortion. I'm certainly not calling for a ban on foreign aid or disaster relief. But abortion funding hardly fits either of those bills. Are we running such a surplus that we can afford to give money to other countries for planned parenthood?

Enjoy this educational video about where some of that "family planning" money ends up.