Tags: Brilliant | Idea | for | Airline | 'Bailout'

A Brilliant Idea for an Airline 'Bailout'

Friday, 21 September 2001 12:00 AM

OK … let's say we're going to go ahead and plow $15 billion of taxpayers' funds into the airlines. There are two ways to do it:

a) Just hand the money to the airlines and get nothing of value in return – except for financially stronger airlines.

b) Use the money to buy something of value for the taxpayers from the airlines.

Which tack would you chose? Give the money away or use it to buy something of value?

So, here's the idea. It apparently came from The Heritage Foundation. Instead of just handing $15 billion to the airlines, make an advance purchase of about $16 billion worth of vouchers for airline tickets for government employees. Now, I don't know how much the federal government spends every year on airline tickets. It might take 15 years to use up all the vouchers. But that would be $15 billion the airlines would have right now and $15 billion the taxpayers wouldn't have to spend later – plus, you get a $1 billion savings thrown in!

Why can't ideas like this get consideration in Congress? I guess it's because they make just too much sense.

I'm hearing that the passenger loads on airlines is down. Does this mean that they're going to take out a few rows of seats and give everyone some leg room?

What a silly thought.

The Taliban wants some sort of a "neutral" inquiry by the United Nations into terrorism. How many ways can we devise to say NO?

The United Nations has already conducted at least three separate studies into international terrorism.

The United Nations is not now, nor has it ever been, a friend of the United States. We saw this most recently in that moronic racism conference which dissolved into chaos in South Africa.

Those who call for a U.N. solution to terrorism know with absolute certainty that any solution the U.N. might come up with would favor the terrorists and the states that harbor them, not the American people.

Let the U.N. sit on the sidelines on this one and watch.

Some of you folks really need to hone your listening skills. Yesterday I made references to a "dog-squeeze culture." I got a few e-mails from concerned listeners who thought that I was defaming the entire Islamic culture. They were surprised because they heard my earlier statements this week – statements of qualified admiration for Islam and its founder.

Nope, when I spoke of a "dog-squeeze culture" I was talking about the Taliban culture, not Islam. To say that the Taliban culture represents true Islam is to say that those who bomb abortion clinics represent true Christianity. I know better.

You people need to listen more carefully. You need to hear what I'm saying instead of what you want to hear.

Democrats and Republicans know that future control of the congressional legislative agenda is up for grabs right now.

Democrats know that if the voters generally approve of the way Bush handles the terrorism crisis it will mean his re-election and possible return of Republican control of both houses of Congress.

Democrats know that if Bush fails in his war on terrorism it will mean a Democratic president (Hillary) in 2004 and a return to Democratic control of government in Washington.

In a real sense this is not just a war against terrorism. It's also a war for the control of the legislative agenda in Congress for the remainder of this decade.

In more ways than one, it's a war for the future of liberty and our Republic.

Yup, even my listeners noticed! There she was, the ridiculous Cynthia McKinney, right there on the aisle for Bush's speech last night. It's really become somewhat of a joke.

OK – what's an aisle bird? This is someone who makes sure they get a seat on the main aisle of the House chambers in Washington when the president is scheduled to make a speech. They know that the president will walk down that aisle before the speech, and walk up that aisle after the speech – and be on every broadcast and cable network while he does it. If you can be sitting right there, you will be seen shaking hands with the president and holding a little discussion with him as he walks buy.

OK, here's the hard part. To get a seat on the aisle you have to show up at the House chamber at lease five hours before the speech begins. That means Cynthia (who is a Democrat from Georgia, by the way) had to show up at around 4:00 Thursday afternoon and just sit there (you can't send an aide) and wait for five hours. As long as you're going to be on Capitol Hill, you could be spending this five hours in your office doing what the taxpayers pay you for. The taxpayers don't pay you to plant your ass in the view of television cameras for a presidential speech. I believe this is about the ninth time the "Cutest Little Communist in Congress" has staked out that seat. That's a lot of wasted hours for a little tube time.

OK, it was probably legitimate for the cameras to spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on Shrillary Clinton last night. After all, she is the senator from New York. I also admit that my opinion of her demeanor last night is clouded by my sincere feelings that this woman is the most dangerous political figure in the United States today. Having said that – and really making an attempt to be objective here – Hitlary looked bored as hell. She was just going through the motions. I could almost read her thoughts:

"Damn. Just listen to this applause. This jerk may actually pull this one off! He may get the American people behind him and cruise through a re-election in three years! I may have to put my presidential quest off until 2008! I just can't wait until I'm the one up there addressing the nation like this."

This woman has ice water running through her veins. Her every word, every action, every decision is directed to one overreaching goal – to gain more and more political power and to eventually become the first female president of the United States. Power is the ONLY thing she cares about … and she was dreaming of that power last night.

Class warfare doesn't take a break, not even in a time when national unity is needed.

Witness the New York Times' consensus opinion in yesterday's edition. They scoff at the idea that the capital gains tax should be cut. Why? They parrot the usual class warfare, wealth-is-bad line: A capital gains tax cut "would lavish 80 percent of its benefits on the top 2 percent of the wealthiest Americans."

You see where the Times' concerns are? There is absolutely no question – a capital gains tax cut would mean an immediate and large infusion of tax money into federal coffers. This is money that could be spent to bring our economy around and fund the war on terrorism at the same time.

The Times editorialists say that "spending is more likely to have an impact than tax cuts." Yeah – spending is the key all right when the economy is faltering. But there are two choices here.

First, you can add money to the federal treasury by rolling back the tax cut on the highest achievers. This would also cause those high-achievers to curtail their economic activities until such time as tax rates moved lower.

Or … you can pass an immediate capital gains tax cut. People will turn over long-held assets once the tax bite is lowered. This will result in an immediate infusion of cash to the treasury and would cause high-achievers to engage in more of the very activity that leads to the payment of capital gains taxes.

So, the New York Times is given a choice of two approaches. Put more money in the federal treasury by increasing income taxes on the high-achievers, which would cause them to suppress their economic activities; or put more money in the federal treasury by lowering capital gains taxes, which would also put more money in the federal treasury. To the Times, the job of punishing achievement is more important than the task of funding government.

Anyone who thinks American academia doesn't harbor anti-American sentiment should take a look at what happened Monday night at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

It was called "Understanding the Attack on America: An Alternative View." It was a "teach-in" sponsored by the UNC Progressive (read: liberal) Faculty Network. According to Michelle Oswell and Michael Burdei, the "teach-in" gave no insight into the attack. In reality that wasn't even the purpose of the "teach-in." The purpose was to provide a stage – an outlet – for various leftists to vent against capitalism, the "cult of the individual," and America.

About 700 faculty, students and community members were there. They heard William Blum, the author of "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower," speak. He told the crowd, "If I were the president ... I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and the impoverished, and all the millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then ... I would announce that America's global interventions had come to an end. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90 percent and I would use the savings to pay the reparations to our victims and to increase social services."

Blum also blamed anti-Castro Cubans in Miami for "hundreds if not thousands of terrorist attacks in the U.S. and Cuba and elsewhere."

Then there was anthropology professor Catherine Lutz. She said, "If one [of the perpetrators] is Osama bin Laden, send the international police for him and pick up Henry Kissinger and Augusto Pinochet on the way home."

Sociology professor Charlie Kurzman blamed the "military-industrial complex."

Rania Masri, a self-described Arab-American activist and "person of color," blamed white males. He said, "So it seems that simply looking Middle Eastern has become a crime. And this has further fueled the xenophobic sentiment that is taking hold of this country. And I say xenophobic because it's not simply Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, and Indian-Americans that are being attacked, but also Asian-Americans, Korean-Americans, Chinese-Americans. Anyone who looks different than your typical white man."

It gets worse. Stan Goff compared the terrorist attacks to the Nazis setting fire to the Reichstag in 1933. He said it was a more fitting comparison than to Pearl Harbor.

This is the academic environment parents are sending their kids into. Not just at UNC-Chapel Hill, but all over the country. They're being taught by professors who want to shape American into the anti-individual socialist workers' paradise of their dreams.

If one good thing comes from this crisis, let's hope it's the awakening of students and parents to the danger posed by America's leftist academics.

Another thought on these peace protests and "teach-ins" that are being vomited forth from our college and university campuses.

Now, this sounds harsh, but I firmly believe it's true. These so-called "war protestors" are not protesting against a war with terrorists. They are protesting FOR the destruction of a way of life that they hate. The are protesting for an end to capitalism, individualism and a society that rewards achievement and punishes indolence and sloth.

These are people who hate any economic or political system that allows any individual, through extraordinary hard mental and physical work, to rise above the common denominator. They fear an achievement-oriented society because they know they don't have what it takes to flourish in such a system. They want to see our achievement-oriented, competitive economic system destroyed.

© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
Pre-2008
OK … let's say we're going to go ahead and plow $15 billion of taxpayers' funds into the airlines.There are two ways to do it: a) Just hand the money to the airlines and get nothing of value in return – except for financially stronger airlines. b) Use the money to...
Brilliant,Idea,for,Airline,'Bailout'
1966
2001-00-21
Friday, 21 September 2001 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved