Voice For Liberty

Wink Hartman on bailouts, and his own

Bob Weeks

in

Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, a candidate for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas is opposed to government bailouts. Strongly so.

At a January 15th candidate forum, he said “I am one hundred percent against bailouts of any type, shape, or form. Of all the companies I run, not one time has anybody, including the government, come through that front door and said ‘Wink, you screwed this thing up but I want to write you a check anyway.’”

Contradicting Hartman’s claim is his 1987 personal bankruptcy filing. It qualifies as a bailout. It’s true that during the process no one wrote him a check, so his claim in the forum is correct on a certain level. But when debt is canceled, it’s just like someone wrote a check. It has the same economic effect for the debtor.

And while Hartman said that no one — and emphasizing the government — has written a check, it’s government debt that was canceled, according to bankruptcy court records. Both the federal government and the State of Kansas received only 12 percent of their claims against Hartman for taxes owed.

Investigations by myself and others indicate that Hartman may have repaid some of his creditors, but not all. It’s difficult to tell, as the bankruptcy filing was 23 years ago.

But even if Hartman did repay all creditors, the government, through the bankruptcy laws, stepped in and gave him the reprieve of time. That’s a bailout, by any measure.

The candidates for this nomination and their campaign websites are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Latham engineer Paij Rutschman, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf.

Comments

4 responses to “Wink Hartman on bailouts, and his own”

  1. liberty4all

    Bankruptcy is a bailout, you are right, Bob.

    And Kansas got screwed it seems, by this Hartman bailout. Yet Mr. Hartman was able to continue on to become a millionaire.

    Perhaps Bankruptcy law should include future pay-backs to those they stiffed once back on their feet, and with interest.

    Hartman is flush with money now, and he should have paid back everyone, including the State, once he was able. It should be a matter of personal responsibility and integrity.

    I think it is disingenuous for him to claim he is against bailouts when it is obvious he benefited greatly from one.

  2. Craig Gabel

    I filed Bankruptcy in 2005, because an ex girl friend filed a “common law” divorce agsainst me in 2002. The divorce had drug on for over 3 years and getting the case out of State court and into Federal Court was the only way to get it resolved.
    This ex’s lawyer had my assets tied up for 3 years, with no taxes being paid, My bankruptcy included everyone I owed and my repayment plan was fully funded (100% payment of debt) over time. I will be years yet repaying the debt created including $200,000 in legal fees. Bankruptcy gives us many tools to fix many problems but should not be abbused by destroying those that were gracious enough to trust us with credit.

  3. Mike

    Hi, while I’ll give you that “Bankruptcy is a bailout”, it’s not what we’re discussing in the arena of current affairs. Business men on the way up usually borrow money to start up, if their idea worked, then they can pay for the next one on their own. If it doesn’t them they go Bankrupt. This basic process is codified under current law. The actual gift of taxpayer money to keep an existing business from entering Bankruptcy is a whole new ball game, and one that banks don’t like. When a business enters bankruptcy, often their assets are auctioned giving the banks (and others) access to inexpensive real-estate.

    Mike

  4. Wichitator

    Hartman paid pennies on the dollar with his bankruptcy filing with the government. I’m more concerned about his bankruptcy filing that stiffed individual businesses and creditors.

    While Hartman is under no legal obligation to pay these debts, this does not remove the moral obligation to pay off his creditors. I realize that this is a quaint notion in the Obama regime era of bailouts and massive government counterfeiting, but if Hartman is the real deal, he should have gotten square with his creditors decades ago, when he got back on his feet. These debts and how the debts were handled says volumes about Wink the man and my vote will not be cast for Mr. Hartman in the August primary.

    We can, and we should do much better. I won’t be voting for the tax ‘n spend liberal in the primary, Jean Schodorf either. She’s never seen a tax she won’t hike to help pay her school district salary.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

More posts