The evening news carries stories of government waste and nuisance
regulations almost daily. We need to eliminate programs (a.k.a
"government solutions") no longer serving a useful purpose,
and streamline the inefficiencies out of many of the rest. Regulations
that require PhDs or legions of attorneys to understand must be
minimized. We need to cut down on needless bureaucratic process.
Our government was meant to help its citizens, not tie their hands
in red tape and confusion. If we can reduce government interference
and simplify the process of complying with necessary regulations,
entrepreneurs will grow the good jobs that will restore the American
dream for more of our neighbors. We must all work to make our
government more "user-friendly" and responsive to the
people.
My first choice for tax reform is the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment and all income taxes, and their replacement with a national sales tax. This has many advantages. Our nation now spends about $900 billion a year to collect some $1.5 trillion in income, payroll, estate and gift taxes. This is not very efficient. All states now collect a sales tax, such that adding a national sales tax to those processes could be done with almost no increase in collection costs. This would eliminate the abuses of the IRS, be perceived as "fair" by nearly everyone, and all but eliminate the evasion that now exists because of all the above problems with this system. The considerable energy and financial resources now expended by individuals and corporations to comply with the tax law could be redirected to truly productive endeavors, generating a veritable flood of new investment leading to new jobs and enhanced productivity with the resulting increase in standard of living.
Absent agreement to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, I favor a flat tax and "scraping the Code". Reagan's tax plan came the closest to this in recent memory with two rates, and tax revenues actually rose under this plan. And it didn't favor the rich like liberals so often claim. The richest 1% and 5% both paid a larger percentage of the total tax bill in 1988 than they did before these lower rates in 1981, and the poorest 1% and 5% both paid less. Even though the top marginal rate declined from 70% to 28%, the share of the top 5% of earners rose significantly from 35% of taxes collected in 1981 to 46%--nearly half the total-in 1988. This plan would include high personal exemptions, like Steve Forbe's proposal for $12,000 per adult and $5,000 per child.
Not only would such a plan be more fair, but it would save much of the money now wasted on talented accountants and lawyers who manipulate complex rules to parochial advantage, and whose energies would be better spent on the development of better widgets or better systems for delivering or selling those widgets.
Fairness would be served by eliminating special-interest provisions, sometimes written to benefit one person, and which unfairly shift the legitimate tax burden of government. It would be further served by curbing tax evasion. Too many ordinary, otherwise law-abiding citizens, are seduced into the belief that "everyone cheats", thereby allowing them to justify their own evasion. Radical simplification of the tax code would increase compliance, and, therefore, revenue collection, because citizens would believe this was fair and that everyone else was paying their share.
I do, however, strongly support continuation of the Earned Income
Credit. I believe the minimum wage needs to be kept relatively
low to facilitate employment of teens and seniors in positions
like those at McDonalds and Walmart, and many others in entry-level
positions. However, considering the many families that are required
to exist on one or two incomes at this level, I believe that this
position on a low minimum wage can only be justified, if an earned
income credit provides them with additional assistance. These
people should be rewarded for taking responsibility for their
own lives rather than turning completely to public assistance.
While I'm forced to wonder whether or not the easy availability of federally-guaranteed loans has fueled the unconscionable inflation of higher education costs since I went to college, I support these programs as the only means for many Americans (including my children) to pay these bills.
At the secondary level, we've been utterly failing our children since we stopped enforcing standards for academic achievement and discipline for older students in the late Sixties. We need higher standards in our schools and they need to be met in order to achieve promotion and graduation.
School vouchers are a good idea if they can be used without
extending government control to our religious and other private
schools. These schools (which my children attended) save money
for the taxpayer who would otherwise bear the cost of more children
in the public systems. I am cautious about vouchers only because
government has a way of wanting to control that which it pays
for or subsidizes, and I do not want these schools to loose the
opportunity they now have to fortify the moral values instilled
at home in our children.
Reform is way past being needed and it must include protection of benefits for people already retired and so close to retirement age that their life plans are inextricably linked to the existing system. As Social Security actuaries and commissioners have been saying for years, changes must be made in order to have benefits continue when the baby boomers begin to retire.
In 1950, there were 17 workers for every retiree, and the average retiree lived about 2 more years. Today there are about 3 workers for every retiree, and this ratio will be 2 to 1 in 2029. Combined with rising life expectancy, this is a formula for disaster. These simple facts make it very clear that changes are needed. American workers are not well-served by platitudes from Bill Clinton and others pretending that there is no problem. Experts report that if Medicare and Social Security had to obey the same rules that apply to private pensions, the reported federal deficit in 1996 would've changed from about $150 billion to about $1.5 trillion.
The necessary decisions are hardly mysterious. They involve some
combination of: adjusting future retirement ages to reflect advances
in healthy life expectancy; taking the "trust fund"
out of the federal budget and truly "investing" these
payroll deductions in the private markets (where they will also
stimulate job growth); and separating worker contributions so
that some of them are left (with the trust fund and general revenues)
to fund benefits for those who stay in the current system, while
a steadily-increasing amount of them is directed to a personal
retirement account (like an IRA or 401(k) plan). Chile and England
both made such changes years ago and made certain that current
beneficiaries did not lose out. In Chile, at least 10% of workers'
paychecks goes into these accounts (compared to the 12.4% current
U.S. rate) and about 90 % of their workers are now in their new
system. That's not surprising because the old system collects
up to about two-thirds more in taxes, while paying back about
40% less.
I am pro-life. My mother-in-law asked me over 26 years ago "Why is it not murder?" Ever since I found myself unable to answer that question, without resort to semantical nonsense that results in line-drawing problems, that have no solution other than a pro-life position, there has been no doubt in my mind that abortion is unacceptable.
We need more effective deterrents to crime. Punishment should be swift and certain. Restitution and forfeiture (following due process) must insure that crime doesn't pay. Community service must be used more often in a manner that benefits the community while teaching a lesson to and aiding in the reform of the perpetrator.
We need to find ways to spend less money warehousing criminals (like tent camps being used very effectively in the Southwest). Murderers and perpetrators of other violent crimes should have far fewer opportunities for delay and appeal of their sentence. Non-violent offenders should be serving less time, in locations separate from violent offenders, and be given the chance to prove that their limited incarceration, public service, and restitution has reformed their behavior.
Work must be expanded for those imprisoned to help defray their
costs. Special attention should be given in this regard to activities
that will assist the homeless and others impoverished among us.
The phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"
is true. We need to get serious with those people who commit violent
crimes with guns, but preventing law-abiding citizens from owning
a gun is not the answer to our problems. While I agree that guns
should not be sold to children, and reasonable waiting periods
to purchase handguns are appropriate, I do not favor additional
restrictions limiting Americans' Constitutional right to bear
arms.
Our founding fathers never intended for Congress to become home to a select group of career politicians. Had they foreseen this evolution, I'm convinced they would have written term limits into the Constitution.
While we need a Congress that is strong enough to control the excesses of the federal bureaucracy, this is better achieved by electing committed men and women of character, than by keeping career politicians in office for generations. We need to be represented by citizens with experience from different walks of life and the wisdom and common sense that derives from that experience--citizen statesmen.
Aware of the need to allow good people to continue to serve, I
believe the correct solution is six two-year terms for the House
of Representatives, and two six-year terms for the Senate.
As a longtime member of the Boy Scouts and a past President of
the my Audubon Society chapter, and a backpacker who has logged
over 600 miles on the Appalachian Trail, I know how important
preserving our environment is to our future and our children's
future. As a businessman, I appreciate the problems companies
face when confronted with endless environmental regulations. I
will work to find ways to allow environmental and corporate interests
to co-exist.
This must happen. We've made it too difficult for our government to be "of the people", and to elect the kind of citizen statesman we need to see returned to Washington, when we place so much importance on raising such large amounts of money. Politicians have no choice but to solicit and accept these amounts from groups that believe their special interests should take precedence over the common good. Yet PACs are important because they provide an opportunity for individuals to leverage their voice on issues that are important to them.
So what kind of reform is needed? Ending the ability of political parties to accept unlimited amounts of "soft money" seems like an easy start, but this really does have freedom of speech problems, and isn't a real solution anyway. The problem with this and proposals for legislated spending limits on congressional and senatorial campaigns, is that they make the classic prohibitionist mistake of trying to regulate supply rather than demand. Perhaps the solution is to limit candidate spots on TV and radio to the last 4 to 7 days before the election, and otherwise ban political commercials (like we banned cigarette ads, and who do you know who isn't tired of campaign ads by the time election day arrives anyway). Once this is done, unlimited, disclosed contributions could be allowed for mailings, staffs and bumper stickers, since only so much can be expended on these items.
In a related matter, I thought it curious, during my first campaign,
to be occasionally asked to leave a school entranceway or other
quasi-public location when I was doing nothing more than introducing
myself and handing out a card to tell voters "who I was"
and "what I stood for," or to be sometimes told when
I asked to speak before a group, that they didn't want "political
speakers." We as voters too often complain about the quality
of our elected officials, about negative TV ads or ads that only
tell us what the candidate wants us to hear, and about the money
being spent, and some of us don't vote because "we don't
know enough about the candidates," but too often we refuse
to let these candidates introduce themselves to us personally,
or deny them simple, cost effective ways to present themselves.
|
I believe that efforts to reduce government and unleash the energy and spirit of good Americans must be continued I strongly support Don Sherwood, a Tunkhannock businessman who substantially shares my views on the issues, for election to the U.S. Congress. You can email me at eflynn@ptdprolog.net. |