Platforms
The taxing issue goes far beyond just wanting to cut taxes. The reality is that the Federal government grabs its monies a little at a time throughout our entire lives and we don't even realize the extent of their thievery. You've got sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, inheritance taxes, gasoline taxes, sin taxes, and a multitude of others, not even trying to separate out fees that are more correctly labeled taxes. And, just when you think you’ve had enough, our tax system creates, for the individual and for the business, a compliance cost that further erodes our economic well-being.
Payroll and income taxes eat up nearly 25% of the average workers pay. Of course, the majority of employees never see the effect of the payroll tax, a part of their wage they never see. On the other hand, every business owner is well aware of the payroll cost, and factors those numbers into employment decisions. The American worker cannot continue allowing the government to blind them to the true cost of their employment. That's why I am a proponent of the FairTax. The actual bill, a mere 131 pages, intends to replace thousands of pages of the current tax code. Its self-proclaimed goal is “To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.” You can find the text of the bill by clicking here.
Those other taxes that will be eliminated? We’re talking about payroll taxes, estate taxes, and gift taxes.
Eliminating the income and payroll taxes will free up businesses to get about doing their business. They’ll spend less time and money attempting to comply with regulations that even the IRS misinterprets. Abolishing the estate and gift taxes goes to the essence of what it means to be an American. Taxing previously taxed monies without additional economic activity is not an American value. Our forefathers went to war over such principles. It's a punishment for folks who have done well, lived and built their own American dream, and then died with what the government says is too much money. You try taking a twenty off a corpse, see what happens, but when the Federal government does it, it's just a way of life.
There are other taxes we pay that are not included in the FairTax legislation, many of them just money grabs. Consistent with my overall platform, reducing the Federal government's presence in our lives, I believe that any gasoline tax should be submitted to the state of origin, not to the Federal coffers. There isn't any reason, other than to allow Washington to take a cut and to redistribute the monies to other more needy states, for the Federal government to collect those dollars. My goal would be to eliminate the decreasing return of taxes you pay (the Federal government takes a cut without doing anything to preserve the roads.) A substantial benefit would be the elimination of the blackmail capability of the Federal government on the States. You've heard it before, if you don't do something (ie. lower the speed limit, lower the OWI standards, make seatbelt enforcement a primary objective, and many more to come) then your Federal highway dollars will be withheld. Every time Washington wants to force the states to do something, they threaten to withhold the highway funds. Those decisions need to be made without Federal intervention. Making the gasoline tax a local tax gets the Federal government out of the way, but it also prevents local governments from scapegoating the Federal government when it comes to state laws.
Our state now sits in the 48th position when it comes to receiving federal spending http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/cffr-08.pdf That’s after ranking 47th for 2006 http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/cffr-06.pdf, Page 25.) The Federal government has become a bloated pig. Not only is it bloated with our tax dollars, but also the promises of generations yet to be born, and we are not getting our money’s worth. It's not to late to correct the situation. Abraham Lincoln once expressed confidence that "while the people retain their virtue and their vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly can seriously injure the government in the short space of four years." Reagan commented that Lincoln might have hedged on that statement if he were able to see the effects of the Carter administration. We are at the same point, here and now.
Ronald Reagan once said, “government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.”
In the Healthcare forum, this should be more than a warning, it should be a guiding principle. Our government is not, and should not be, first in line to insure or care for Americans. To believe otherwise, and to create a right for the citizen, is to focus on the possibility that government might help but won’t harm those in need. No matter how benevolent the intention, this is a perverse view of our Constitution.
Our healthcare delivery system is currently configured to guarantee emergency care regardless of ability to pay. The standard is one of stabilization, built on the compassionate view that no human should be abandoned in their greatest hour of need based on station or income. This is not true in other parts of the world. In Britain, just this August, a pregnant woman was refused an ambulance and had to walk to the hospital, giving birth outside on the sidewalk. She was told that “they were not sending an ambulance” and she “had had nine months to sort out a lift.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement-refused-ambulance.html.
Socialized medicine, on the other hand and of necessity, places its focus on preventative care. It must attempt to keep as many citizens out of the hospitals, out of the waiting rooms, out of their doctor’s sight as is possible. It extends the franchise to citizens, immigrants, aliens, and illegal aliens alike. Socialized medicine then, because of its reach and scope, begins to heavily tax other medical resources of its community, state, or country. Don’t believe me? Check out this bit from Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor. Pay attention to the fact that it is government officials determining that the number of surgeries will be cut, not doctors, not patients, not insurance companies. Instead, you will be subject to the shifting winds of political opinion. Or if you’re looking for a closer to home analogy, check out how Hawaii’s experiment turned out. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,440561,00.html.
The problem with our system is not our priorities, it is with the costs of the system and the ability of everyday families who seek care, but cannot afford that care. In our district, any low-income family already qualifies for state-subsidized insurance. No one is pushing for insurance for the rich, they can buy their own. It is the family in the middle that needs the reform and it is their situation that must be advanced. The solution is not to revamp the entire system and have government dictate availability of access to healthcare.
I cannot advocate any solution that puts the central government into the market in competition with insurance companies. Instead reform must target those areas central to the runaway nature of medical costs. At the top of the list is Tort Reform and the litany of unnecessary tests run by doctors in their attempt to avoid a costly malpractice allegation. Hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies have enormous compliance costs imposed by the same government that laments the high price of care. The limited compensation under SCHIP, Medicare, and Medicaid passes more costs to America citizens. And yet other areas of needed reform question whom is accessing hospitals and what regulations will provide needed protections to hospital. If legal aliens cannot provide proof of a HSA, they should be denied entry into the United States. We must begin to place the direct cost of healthcare accessed and consumed by aliens where it belongs and not on the average American family who already struggles to pay for their own care.
What will not work is minimizing opposing solutions and soundbites. Pres. Obama has already expressed, “If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that’s going to make you well?” His flippant attitude ignores reality. Medicine interacts with the chemistry of patients in different ways. Price is only one measure of a pills effectiveness. Some pills are harder on a patients’ system than others. Some pills cannot be taken by certain patients, some patients believe one pill is better, etc, etc. If one pill works just as well in every respect and the price difference is substantial (half in this example), the situation will not last very long, market forces will push down the price of the higher priced pill. And, all the while, the patient still has the choice between the two. Do you really want some administrator deciding your future? Don’t allow Washington to determine which services you can obtain and which treatments your doctor can employ. Keep the choice in your hands. That is what an American would do.
The United States must keep a strong ear to the ground and maintain its position as the world leader. No matter the critic, this is still a country that people die to get into and there isn’t one other country in the world that has that kind of draw.
America has, from its founding, contained a rich treasury of natural resources. Yet, we continue to lag behind other developed countries in developing those resources. From the oceans to nuclear power, America has not employed a National Energy Policy consistent with our status in the world
Social Media