Waiter, check please.

During the TARP discussions, when Congress and everyone with half a brain was talking about the bank bailout and who would get what and how we'd pay for it and how much it'd cost us, etc etc. there was talk that "those that sowed should reap," i.e. people that had taken out bad mortgages should pick up more of the tab than the common schmoe like myself who rents an apartment and has no investments worth crying over. Why, we all asked ourselves, should I pay taxes to bailout these corrupt Mammon-worshipping a-holes when I was smart with my money?

Well the economics of the thing were pretty far-reaching, and (although I would have been safe, I bank at UMB, who is doing great) most of us would have been up a creek as the U.S. economy imploded had the banks gone under.

Now here we are again, and Detroit needs a bailout. Man am I getting tired of hearing about it. But the question I ask is maybe the personal responsibility should apply in this case. How could this possibly effect a cattle rancher in Montana? Or a wheat farmer in Wichita? Or a coal miner in Virginia? There is a giant portion of the United States that has no Ford, GM or Chrysler plant. There is an almost as large chunk of this country that has no plants that make parts that are shipped to the Big 3 plants.

Can someone explain to me why Montana taxpayers should be equally penalized via taxation in order to get Detroit a few more months on life support? There are places, and they are large, in this country that would feel literally zero negative effect if a black hole opened and swallowed the Big 3 over night. Their cars would still start in the morning. They could still get parts (granted, not certified parts, but still) if something broke, and there are several other car companies nationally mobilized in this country to sell people cars if suddenly the Big 3 were unable to do so. Why should citizens of Montana backwater towns be beholden the same as the townsfolk of Flint?

Now someone might argue "well, that's just the patriotic duty of each American; to help out one another in a time of trouble."
Fair enough, that is a valid argument. But would the citizens of Flint, Michigan put up a fuss if they were told their taxes were going up to pay subsidies to cattle farmers who can't afford grain for their cattle anymore due to ethanol being so popular? You bet they would. Or would the citizens of Detroit cry "foul" if they were asked to give up an extra 5% of their income so that low-income families could have health insurance? You better believe it.

So the question becomes: should those who stand to lose the most if the Big 3 go bankrupt pay the most, or should we all pay up equally? Even though most of us at this dinner table only had the house salad and a bowl of soup, should we all pony up equally to pay the tab for the fat kid who had the riblet platter? Or is this the day we put our foot down and stop paying for his gluttony?


_