Matters Of Opinion

Banks Tackles Labor Monster

Now, I know what all of the union “brothers” are going to say right off the bat. “Oh, HERE we go. Travis is going to get up on his soap box to whine about the union that ALLOWS him to keep his job!”

Yes, and no.

The main basis of this post has little to do with my own thoughts on unions or anything to do with my piece from last year. What this post is about is freshman Sen. Jim Banks’ impressive, aggressive, political moves right off the starting block. As you can read in the post below this one, Banks has already moved ahead with his effort to do away with the “death tax” here in Indiana. Now he is pushing for another very conservative ideal: the protection of union workers from…well…their union.

Excerpt borrowed from “Angry White Boy“:

State Sen. Jim Banks (R-Columbia City) recently
filed legislation seeking an amendment to the Indiana Constitution guaranteeing
an individual’s right to vote by secret ballot in any election where union
representation is at stake.

So what does your run of the mill, conservative union worker think of this legislation? I think it’s wonderful news. I haven’t ever been able to grasp the concept that so many Democrats have proposed that “secret ballots” are not needed. Of course they are needed! It’s nobody’s damn business how I vote, especially my union officials’ business! There have been several instances at my own place of business where I have not been exactly…ecstatic about the cases that my union has fought for (and in some cases won) and the cases which they have not given the time of day (which I thought were valid arguments and cases where union representation could have been needed).

I know, I know, “union brothers”, if you don’t like it, be a union griever yourself. And I would, if I had even an extra minute a week that wasn’t already filled. I’d do it in a heart beat. In fact, when helping secure an endorsement from my union for a candidate’s campaign that I was managing, I was offered a job in the union where I would put up the information fliers at the different shops. I almost did it, too, until the ridiculous flier about “Why Obamacare is Good For Union Workers” flier was published the following week (not only was the flier flat out inaccurate about the information put forth, it didn’t in any way mention that the union deal that was fan-dangled is only temporary). You see, it’s not that I’m “anti-union”, or even “pro-union”, at least in the sense that each faction sees themselves. I’m a union worker, but I find the union to be almost unnecessary anymore, and in some cases, even a hindrance on those of us that think that because we work harder and do extra we should have the right to at least ASK for a raise. And perhaps, just perhaps, a fellow that has worked there for 35 years and can barely tie his own shoe shouldn’t be operating certain pieces of equipment. And maybe, just maybe, during contract negotiations, they shouldn’t have fought like Hell to stop random drug testing. But…I am but one “brother”.

The idea of this “brotherhood” runs contrary to my thoughts on being an individual person. Heck, in a more recent post, even with my politics, I won’t sign on to any persons “camp” (although Banks is quickly becoming my favorite State Senator). And so yes, even though I am in a union and recognize that, at one point in time, unions were extremely important (now a days, in some cases, important still, although not nearly as important as the days of zero safety gear, unlimited hours of forced work, and little dirty coal mining minors) I still think there are important boundaries that unions cross over on a daily basis, and I think in many senses union leaders can be hypocrites. Union bosses want to donate money (in many cases union dues) to political campaigns, but want restrictions on “big businesses” contributions and lobbying efforts. They want continued raises for employees, regardless of merit or circumstances, but then whine when the results are mass lay offs. There are a hundred other little things, from my own personal place of employment that I could rattle on about, but I’m pretty sure that isn’t in my best interest as a person that wants to continue to…well…work. And besides that, it wouldn’t be right for me to write about the people that I work with everyday, who are themselves nine times out ten hard working people who are just trying to put food on their families plates.

What will Banks’ proposal stir up? Who knows. Maybe the unions won’t balk (or at least won’t lash out). One political insider closely related to this case had this to say.

“This won’t see the light of day unless tea partiers and conservatives force their representatives to vote. Mitch doesn’t care for issues like this, he prefers fiscal measures.  Northwest Indiana legislators are scared to death of upsetting the labor monster.”

“Senator Banks is leading the conservative charge and forcing legislators to make their true colors known.  Looking forward to the 2012 Gubernatorial campaign this kind of legislation will separate the RINO’s from the conservatives.  Is Mike Pence this kind of Governor?”

Now, I hate the term RINO, only because it used to describe just about EVERY conservative that doesn’t fit into one cookie cutter mold. BUT I agree that there are RINO’s, and I think that allowing union members their private votes is a very good indicator of a RINO laying around in the tall, tall grass. As far as where Mitch stands on this issue, I’m not sure it’s really in his best interest to play in this particular ball game much, other than giving a neutral statement about supporting his team, because he has already stirred up some union pots with his polarizing educational reforms and getting into fights with more unions is not going to help his Presidential run (I’ll have to uncross my fingers now so I can continue typing). Mike Pence, on the other hand, could and should be vocal about support for legislation of this kind, especially if he wants to start creating a platform for a 2012 Gubernatorial run (which is very likely).

Sen. Jim Banks Files First Bill: Death To Death Tax

It’s been said that the only things certain are death and taxes…but what about taxes AFTER death?! How unfair is that!? You work your entire life, you pay your income taxes, you pay your property taxes, your sales taxes, the embedded taxes in imports like sugar, where the cost is folded into the price but you, as the consumer, are still paying for that import tax…the taxes are endless.

So now, even after you have paid out the nose to fund a government that wants to hand it all out in the form of bailouts and welfare checks, you die. And what happens? You guessed it. You’re assets, when passed on to a family member or friend, are TAXED.

But if State Senator Jim Banks has anything to do with it, this travesty will finally become righted (following quotes borrowed from the Senator Jim Banks press release).

“”If passed, this bill would allow the state to responsibly phase out the inheritance tax over five years,” Banks said. “By eliminating this burdensome tax, we are encouraging hardworking Hoosiers to retire in Indiana and pass along their wealth to family or friends without the fear of government intrusion.”

Banks said by eliminating the inheritance income tax, the state could attract investments which could lead to economic growth. Banks filed the legislation in response to concerns from constituents in Senate District 17.

Taxes on state and federal inheritance income and estates will cost this generation of Hoosiers thousands of jobs, according to the American Family Business Foundation.

Banks’ legislation will be assigned to a committee for further consideration.

Only six states levy an inheritance tax, with the rate depending on the relationship of the heir to the deceased, according to Banks.”

Sen. Banks is absolutely right in his convictions. It is unfair, it is regressive to this state financially, and scares off people that want to settle down in one of our sleepy little towns here in this great state. I hope that everybody takes a moment and writes to Sen. Banks thanking him for pushing for the death of the death tax.

The Republican Party is Sort of Like a Football Team…

I’ve had a lot of different people ask me on several different occasions: “What camp are you in?” What they mean is, who do I fall in line with. Am I a moderate McCain type of Republican? Am I in the Huckabee camp, which represents a lot of the social conservatives? Do I fall into the Paul camp, with the libertarians? Or perhaps the Palin camp, where tea party support is rallied around?

My answer is always: none of the above.

There’s not a single politician that I don’t have SOME kind of qualm with. There’s not one person that has emerged on the scene where I’ve been taken by surprised and have said, “Wow! This guy/girl really represents me, Travis Gearhart!” Sure, I have my preferences, and my reasons behind those preferences, which you have all had the pleasure to read over the years, but there’s not a one “camp” that I belong too, because I prefer to think of the Republican party as a team effort.

To me, building a sound, stable party, is a lot like putting together a great football team.

You have your star “receivers”, like Mike Pence and John Thune. They are almost universally liked in the Republican party, because they have a strong conservative message and aren’t negative to fellow conservatives if they disagree (at least that I’ve ever heard of, if they are privately that’s another thing). They aren’t used all the time by the party, they aren’t always out there getting the ball, but when they are, they are good at what they do and don’t drop too many passes.

There are the front lineman, like John McCain and Scott Brown, the more moderate of the Republicans. I consider them to fall into this category because the “hold the line” against those critics that paint the GOP in a light that is not conduit of a “big tent”, and because they are the Republicans that, when they throw their weight behind an important issue, even independents perk their ears up. For example, with McCain being a moderate, there were many independent friends of mine who admitted that they really liked McCain, but got caught up in the Obama-mania. So when McCain spoke out against the health care bill, his opinion carried a lot of weight and helped changed the minds of a lot of independents. The moderates create a great defense to help keep the party from being painted as a bunch of “wing nuts”.

Then we have the “rushers”. They are the ones who represent one faction or another of the party and are constantly running the agenda forward. Huckabee and Paul would probably fit this category. They are pretty vocal about what faction that they represent, and can be seen in interviews constantly giving their opinions on one matter or another. These aren’t used very often, for practical reasons, because while they are good rushers and have a burst of speed forward, they don’t gain that much ground. Only a couple yards at a time. This doesn’t mean these aspects of the party aren’t important, just that they shouldn’t be the primary play makers. They work better if they are mixed with the receivers, so as to keep the Democrats guessing which play is being made.

Finally, we have the quarterbacks of the party. Reagan was a quarterback, G.W. Bush was a quarterback, and I believe that Mitch Daniels is a quarterback. That isn’t to say that any of these people weren’t, at one point in time, a different player in the party, or that other players couldn’t fit into this category in the future (Mike Pence, for one, will one day be an excellent quarterback) just that these people are the ones that have shown and continue to show the kind of leadership and decision making abilities that a quarterback has to have.

There are obviously plenty of other politicians that have different roles and fit into different categories, both named and not named, but I think I’ve outlined pretty well my thoughts on the factions and how each one can and should work, as a team, to move that football into the end zone. We have been playing some tough D, and we’ve forced the Democrats into a fourth down scenario. How we move the ball from here on out, and who we have in what position on the field, will decide if we can keep throwing up points on the scoreboard or if we’re going to walk off the field and let the Democrats have the ball back. There’s no two minute warning is this game, either. So we have to act fast and play well.

The Tax Code: Explained the Easiest Way Possible

Ok, so I didn’t think of this, but this is certainly the best way to explain the tax code to the average person. To give credit where credit is due, I found this at www.dalesdesigns.net/beer-tax.htm , I although I’ve heard this example used other times in the past on several different sites, so I don’t think this explanation is exclusive to that site. Enjoy!

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this;

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.
But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using,
and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction..

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Trimming Nations Fiscal Fat Starts With Cutting Out Pork

This piece was originally written for and appeared in the Northwest Indiana Times for December 13, 2010.

If there is one issue concerning the future of America’s youths that must be addressed, and soon, it is the financial state of our country. Nothing else is as pressing an issue then this country’s apparent need to spend beyond its means.

Right now, the U.S. national debt is nearly $14 trillion. The debt per citizen stands at about $44,000. The debt per actual taxpayer stands at more than $125,000 (which is a revealing figure when one thinks about how many people in this country don’t actually pay any taxes). Our federal budget deficit is around $1.3 trillion.

These are scary numbers, even scarier when one considers the Federal Reserve will print out boatloads of money, in effect making our dollar worth that much less, at the drop of a hat.

We owe China more money than we’ll probably ever be able to pay, let alone the other countries we owe. We have a growing base of Social Security recipients in the largest government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure in the federal budget, with 20.8 percent for social security, compared to 20.5 percent for discretionary defense and 20.1 percent for Medicare/Medicaid.

So when Republicans in Congress started to talk about tackling these issues, my ears perked up and I listened inquisitively.

The biggest issue that has been brought up, and debated back and forth as of late, even within the Republican Party itself, has been earmark reform. Earmarks, commonly known also as “pork,” are legislative provisions that direct approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.

In Congress lately, these earmarks have grown significantly in number and have become a problem because enough earmarks in a bill for a particular state can result in a “buying” of a vote. This is fine and dandy for that particular state, but bad for the country as a whole.

Not all earmarks are bad — this usually depends on whether yours is the state receiving the funding — and I don’t think anyone seriously believes the elimination of all earmarks is possible, or even practical, but earmarks are as good a place as any to start down that road of fiscal solvency.

Earmarks are also, from a political standpoint, a safe place to start this journey, since it covers all congressmen, all the time.

It’s not as though the new Congress is picking on a strictly liberal ideal, nor are they focusing their attention on different demographics, like picking apart Social Security (although eventually that must be reformed as well).

They are starting out by finding that middle line, and working out in either way to trim as much fat as can be trimmed, and I hope that this initiative can resonate throughout the next couple of years, not just for the sake of the party, or for myself and my family, but because the nation can’t survive with this kind of monetary chokehold.

Matters of Opinion now on Facebook

Some time ago I had created my Facebook account to be strictly a Matters of Opinion affiliated account, and then over time it gradually became a personal account. While the Facebook account is still good, and if you want to be my Facebook friend, go right at it, I’ve created a separate Facebook fan page for people to comment on pieces if they feel so inclined. Just type in Matters of Opinion in your search box and click “like” and you will have an easy and reliable place to see what’s new on the site. Thanks for taking the time out of your busy schedule to read my thoughts and opinions, it is always appreciated.

Travis Gearhart

Republicans and Obama Find Some Middle Ground

While I certainly believe that we would be far better off economically if the Bush era tax cuts were re-passed in full, this is welcoming news. Since Republicans had won big in the mid term elections, I have been wondering what President Obama would do. Would he cave to the pressures of the liberal Democrats? Would he “pull a Clinton” and work towards some workable legislation?

Hopefully this agreement is an indication of how he plans to work.

The agreement struck up isn’t too bad, either. “Besides holding current tax rates in place for all, the proposal would extend unemployment benefits and reduce payroll taxes for a year, which would help many lower-income Americans” (taken from AP line).

“The emerging agreement includes tax breaks for businesses that the president said would contribute to the economy’s recovery from the worst recession in eight decades.

The proposed Social Security tax cut would apply to virtually every working American. For one year they would pay 4.2 percent of their income, instead of 6.2 percent, to the government retirement program, fattening U.S. paychecks by $120 billion in 2011.

Someone earning $40,000 a year would receive a $800 benefit, and a $70,000 earner would save $1,400, officials said. More than three-fourths of all Americans pay more in these so-called payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.

The White House said money from other sources would be shifted so the Social Security trust fund loses no revenue.

Obama said he reluctantly made another concession to Republicans, concerning the estate tax. It would tax estates worth more than $5 million at a rate of 35 percent, a GOP goal. Democrats favored a $3.5 million threshold, with a 45 percent tax on anything higher.”

Considering that the alternative plan, which House and Senate Democrats wanted, was to let all the tax cuts except the ones that affected the middle and lower class expire, this isn’t too bad. I would prefer, of course, either the Fair Tax or a flat tax, but I suppose at this point in the game beggars can’t be choosers.

The only thing that worries me is that the President has said the Social Security trust would lose no revenue through these plans because they would get it from other places. What other places? I have no problem with government cuts, but it’s pretty pointless to cut one thing and add on to another. It’s not really a cut, then, it’s a shift of funds.

Regardless, while the problem of reducing our deficit and saving our nation economically is a very important one, it is not nearly as important as keeping the life support on right now. Unemployment is at 9.8%, and these continuations of tax rates will hopefully help to keep that number growing even higher. Once that is fixed, then it will be time to redouble the efforts to get our books in the black (or at least away from the DOOMSDAY levels).

I actually wrote a piece that will be in the Times next week or the week after, that focuses on reducing the deficit, and while doing research I looked up the numbers online. I implore you to check out the clock for yourself. It’s a very scary image, to visually see the numbers roll like that. It makes you wonder when all of the numbers will just hit a bunch of bright red zero and the screen will blow up. That clock helps to really bring it on home, at least it did for me.

But I’m getting off track. The point is, these tax cuts are definitely needed, and the fact that the President is willing to reach across that aisle, even if it is reluctantly and not very often, is a something to cheer. And perhaps we can have a little hope and change from the President who preaches it?

Buy Beer On Sunday!?

Well! Indiana is thinking about stopping the ban on alcohol sales on Sunday this year! That is great!

And no, not because I’m an alcoholic (which I’m not), but because it makes sense. One has to wonder exactly how much tax revenue is lost for the state of Indiana each year, particularly in our own little corner here in Northwest Indiana, by those that want to buy beer on a Sunday and can’t, and so they jump state lines. The same reason that people in Lansing, Illinois and other neighboring towns jump over and buy cigarettes: because Illinois taxes on cigarettes are so steep they would rather drive the extra way. I know it’s certainly an inconvenience for somebody who works shift work, like I do, and forgets sometimes (or is unable to do so) to pick up beer on Saturday. What’s funny is where the opposition is coming from on this: the liquor stores.

You would think that having an extra day to sell product would make them happy, but alas, that is not so. The liquor stores are vocal about the opposition to this law change, because they say that by having their stores open on that day, the small number of people that buy the alcohol wouldn’t outweigh the costs of keeping the doors open for that day.

My opinion on this: then don’t open your doors! It’s your store, if you want to be open, be open. If you don’t, more power to you, we can get beer at another store. This is selfish on their part, and a typical disappointment for people who don’t believe in catering to one or the other, but to catering to ALL. The law doesn’t make sense, has never made sense, and if the liquor stores that are lobbying against this win, I’m going to find out which ones were vocal about it and make sure they never get my business again. This is actually a piece very much related to the last one that I had written, about the anti-smokers minding their own privacy and leaving our businesses to theirs. So the liquor stores want essentially the same thing, then. If they can’t manage to be open on Sunday, nobody should. Ridiculous. I hope that this law is changed, and changed swiftly, because if we can’t get something like this taken care of, then there is no hope for bigger, more politically charged and debatable bills and law changes. It would be a very bleak future.

Anti-Smokers: Butt Out!

I pretty well quit smoking almost a year ago. Sure, the occasional filter to my lips happens from time to time, but for the better part, I have been cigarette free for a while now. Yeah, I started chewing in order to supplement the nicotine, and that in itself is a pretty nasty habit, but the beginning of January next year I think I may try that prescription stuff to quite the nicotine all together. We’ll see, though…the point is, I know what it’s like to be a smoker, and I know what it’s like to be a non-smoker. Look up Dennis Leary’s bit on anti-smokers…I’ve “become one of you”.

So yes, the smell of cigarette smoke at bars is not always that pleasant. And yes, I do go home and have to shower for a while, because the smell of smoke seems to be being worn like a cancer suit. And, yes, if I’m going to a restaurant with my pregnant wife and year and a half year old child, I’m going to prefer the one that doesn’t have any kind of smoking section.

However, every year Charlie Brown makes his appeal for a statewide smoking ban, and every year different people all over the newspapers hold up their fists and yell “Yeah!” (the worst thing that ever happened to the Post-Trib was the creation of the Quickly’s. My God.) and every year it doesn’t pass because it is a stupid idea and inhibits property rights. Nothing against the idea of being against smoking. I’ve known a lot of people who have had a lot family members who have died from lung cancer or emphysema, and I know it’s a horrible way to go, but at the end of the day Charlie Brown’s bill are still pulled out like the proverbial football (get it? Charlie Brown? Football pulled away? Insert drums: buda cha!) because property rights still prevail.

Private businesses have the right to decide whether or not their establishments should be smoking establishments or not. Period. I’ve seen different people write their piece on different points of view regarding this point, and one guy actually wrote that “Most businesses want the bill passed to establish an even playing field.” EVEN PLAYING FIELD?! These must not be too successful businesses if they want things to be even on this matter. After all, if EVERYBODY wants to abolish smoking in public places, then why aren’t more restaurants catering to this? If this is the “big thing”, then how come there isn’t a no smoking sign on every door to every restaurant or bar I go to? The reason for this is very simple: it ISN’T the “big thing”. There are a scant minority who are hell bent on abolishing smoking in public areas, a scant few who are fighting like hell to keep smoking in public areas, and a whole bunch who are like me or just don’t care about the smoke (or aren’t bothered by it enough to get all up in arms).

The biggest argument heard, or at least that I have heard, against the smoking in private establishments focused primarily on waitresses and the work place hazards.

My thoughts on this? They may seem harsh, so brace yourself…get a new job!!! Waitress jobs are a dime a dozen. Get one in Valpo or Crown Point or Lowell, if you’re so concerned about working in a smoking environment. This especially ticks me off because of all the people in this part of Indiana that have ACTUAL dangerous jobs. We have iron workers that hang off of scaffolding every day, steel workers that work around molten steel, etc., etc., etc.,…this is an area where blue collar workers prevail. The average time span of living after somebody retires from the mill is what, ten years? Usually less? These jobs are dangerous because that is the nature of the work. Farmers risk the possibility of getting hurt with their own equipment. Welders risk losing their eye sight if they aren’t careful welding. A job is NOT a right, and everybody has risks, be it fiscal or physical, that are taken when they are working a job. Don’t like being around smoke? Ask to work only the non smoking section. I’m sure your boss won’t mind. If he does? Find another waitress job.

Once property rights and the rights to do to oneself what one pleases are breached, where does it stop? Should we be like New York soon, here in Northwest Indiana, and start limiting how much salt we can use on our fries? This is ridiculous. I’m amazed I even have to spend 800 words ranting about this.