Questions from my Senator part 5 reforming our tax code

Hi Mark

Happy New Year!

As per your questions:

Do you support simplifying our burdensome tax code to encourage small business growth?

You answered your own question by calling the tax code burdensome.  The tax code, like the entire federal government, has become burdensome with the constant addition of new regulations.  The Constitution vests all legislative authority in Congress, but government agencies add thousands of new laws (regulations) every year, and, yes, they are all burdensome and (almost?) all should be eliminated.

All taxes limit economic growth, and it isn’t just the small businesses we should be thinking about.  Any tax cuts leave more money in people’s pockets to spend, save, and invest as they will, and all these will lead to economic growth. 

But you can’t address taxes without addressing government spending, because just reducing taxes could cause higher deficits and debt, as least for a while, which will result in the Fed increasing the money supply and devaluing whatever money we still have. 

The government has lost all sense of fiscal responsibility.  It spends millions, billions, and trillions of dollars without any concept of how much money that is.  It’s not their money, and they don’t care.  They use their spending to win voters and don’t care about the long term consequences. 

But back to your question.  There are really two issues here:  simplifying the tax code and reducing taxes.  A simpler tax code, by itself, may only save a small amount of money as it involves only the cost of preparing the taxes.  A simpler tax code is often talked about as being revenue neutral, but what’s the point of that, unless you don’t like tax lawyers?

But the government spends too much money on almost everything, and that raises the need for more tax money.  So the government needs to do both: reduce spending by a lot and reduce taxes by a lot as well.

Do you support closing corporate tax loopholes to keep business and jobs in the United States?

Businesses and jobs need to be kept in the United States.  They want to leave primarily because the corporate tax rates here are too high.  And they are high, because the government has become greedy, because it spends too much money.  Closing these ‘loopholes’ may keep more businesses and jobs here, but they won’t be as profitable, so we won’t be making full use of that potential.

The greatest single thing probably that our government has done to ruin the economy here is the free trade agreements.  They basically allowed our companies to move overseas and then send everything back here. This almost singlehandedly wiped out the middle class in our country.

Do you support decreasing income taxes as a way to stimulate the economy and provide relief to families?

Yes, reducing income taxes will stimulate the economy and provide relief to families, and I support that wholeheartedly.  But if the government doesn’t reduce its spending, this economic boost not only will be short-lived, and it will end up costing us all more in the long run.

The government keeps trying to figure out ways to stimulate this and relieve that, and that’s not its job.  It has taken on responsibilities the Constitution doesn’t give it, all in the name of trying to help people, though the real reason is to get their votes.  The government is the drain on the economy.  The government is taking away our freedoms bit by bit.  Someone has called it death by a thousand pinpricks.  

Larry

Peace on earth and in our streets

The Sun-Times editorial for Christmas Day was spot on in its title and intent: Peace on Earth begins at home.  But then that was the last mention of home in the article. 

The first half of the piece clearly painted the picture of a world in need of peace, but then the article sought to identify the causes and solutions for this criminal behavior that is so rampant today.  The answers to all this turmoil and violence and anger and killings come down to two things: schools and jobs. 

And this answer clearly shows why we are having these problems. 

A child’s character is formed moment by moment through its interactions with its parents.  If the parents are firm, the child learns discipline   If the parents are indulgent, the child learns instant gratification.  If the parents are patient, the child learns self-control.  If the parents are loving, the child learns to love.  If the parents are not home, because either one doesn’t live there or because the one or both are working, then the child’s character is formed through television, media, peers, the internet, or just left to its own impulses.

Children need to be taught honesty, hard work, discipline, self-control, love, respect for others, kindness, forgiveness, sharing, patience, perseverance, sacrifice, giving, mercy, compassion, helping others, generosity, integrity, and humility.  And where would they learn that?  At home from their parents.  Day care won’t teach that, and neither will the schools, although they used to do a lot of that before schools were scrubbed clean of everything having to do with God.

We have tried so hard to promote sexual freedom that we have millions of children growing up with their mothers who never married, and the fathers are not there.

We have tried so hard to get women out of the home and into the work force that there is nobody home to raise the children. 

We treat children like pets who only need a place to stay, something to eat, and a few simple life skills like potty training and how to put on a condom. 

We have tried so hard to remove religion, specifically Christianity, out of the public view and thought, and we are slow to see and admit the gaping holes it has left in the fabric of our society.

Questions from my Senator Part 1 creating jobs and improving the economy

Hi Mark

Thank you for writing.  To answer your questions:

Which of the following do you believe is more likely to secure economic prosperity?

Decreasing federal regulations

Increasing federal spending

Economic prosperity means that I and people like me have more money to spend, save, and invest as we see fit.  When the government spends money, it has to take it from people like me in order to spend it.  The government could borrow or print the money, but this ultimately either makes what they want to do more expensive or just devalues the money I already have. 

Federal spending is a drag on the economy.  Cut spending drastically, and the economy will boom again.

How important is balancing the federal budget?

Very Important

Somewhat Important

Not Important

Balancing the budget is unimportant at this time, but not for the reasons you might think.  Making the budget balance as a priority will most likely demand a huge tax increase, because the government will not have the brains or the balls to cut the size of the government and its spending the way it needs to be cut. 

But as a principle, the budget should be balanced.  Otherwise you are like a homeowner who is paying interest fees on your credit cards every month.  It only makes everything more expensive.  But the government has a huge spending problem, both in terms of how many people work for the government and how it spends its money.  Taxes are too high, so the only room for movement is to cut the size of the government and its spending.

Thanks again.

Larry

One additional note on business regulations.

Regulations increase the cost of businesses unnecessarily in most cases and only raises the prices of their goods and services, which diminishes our prosperity.  This added cost also works to hold down hiring and employee compensation.

We need to encourage people to start their own businesses rather than hope to work for somebody else.  Business regulations and fees and red tape only make it harder. 

Thanks again.  And Merry Christmas! 

Questions from my Senator Part 2 improving our country's heathcare

Hi Mark

In response to your questions:

Do you support a full or partial repeal of Obamacare?

I would like to see Obamacare repealed in full.  This bill is a betrayal of our form of government.  

1)    Something like 1,700 exceptions to the law were allowed in order to get votes for the law.  

2)    It is 2,800 pages long, which we were told we would have to pass the law to find out what was in it.  That is a criminal betrayal of the public trust, but the lawmakers make the laws so nobody holds them to account.  

3)    The people who passed the law keep postponing parts of the law until after the next election, because they are afraid that people will vote them out of office when they feel the effects of this law.  

4)    The President lied about the provisions of the law over and over in order to get the thing passed.  He should have been impeached for that fact alone.  He is a proven liar.  How can we believe him on anything that he says?  We can never know he is lying until it is too late.  That is unacceptable for the President of the United States.

5)    Obamacare is raising the costs of health insurance to the point that a lot of people can’t afford insurance any more.  It requires so many things from insurance companies and insurance plans that prices can only go up.

6)    The success of the law (getting more people insured) is due primarily to the government covering most the cost of their policies, but the government is not straightforward about how much this is costing us.  Not only is this dishonest, but we simply can’t afford it.  We can’t keep telling people that they have a right to something, and then have the government (meaning: everybody else) paying for it.  We are $18 trillion in debt.  When interest rates normalize, we are going to be dumbfounded by how much of our federal budget will be going just for interest payments.

The answer to this is to bring American companies back to America and go back to employer based group insurance plans.  

Do you support increased funding for the National Institutes of Health?

No, I do not support increased funding for the National Institutes of Health.  I admit knowing less about this than a lot of other issues.  I find the Wikipedia summary interesting:

From logistical restructuring, to funding increases, to research prioritization, to government expansion and political influence, the history of the National Institutes of Health is extensive and full of change. The NIH has grown to encompass nearly 1 percent of the federal government's operating budget. The NIH now controls more than 50 percent of all funding for health research, and 85 percent of all funding for health studies in universities.

This summary touches on a lot of the things that are hurting our country:

1)    Our country is in serious debt.  We can’t keep spending money that we don’t have.  We can’t keep writing checks like there is no limit to our money.

2)    I don’t think the government should be deciding the priorities in research.  They end up sending money to people who are connected; they dry up funding for projects they don’t like.  Too much money and potential for both spending it unwisely and for political advantage.  We have pharmaceutical companies and universities who are very interested in research.  Let them do it with private money.

3)    Government has to stop expanding and start shrinking.  The Constitution has very few and defined responsibilities for the federal government. 

Thanks again

Larry

Questions from my Senator Part 3 strengthening our schools

Mark,

Strengthening our schools is one of the most important things we can do, but I don’t think we are asking the right questions or focusing on the right ways to make things better.

As for your questions:

Would you support increasing the length of the school year if it would improve the effectiveness of American schools?

Yes, but that would take a large spending increase.  Property taxes are out of control, and the states don’t have any more money to give to schools.  If I didn’t have two kids in the area and a job that I need for my medical insurance, we would have moved long ago out of our state to somewhere where taxes were more reasonable.

Do you believe charter schools are an effective way to improve our education system?

Yes, but we shouldn’t overlook supporting private schools as well.  We are told that we can’t give public money to private schools, but it is wrong to expect parents to pay twice for their children’s education, once through high property taxes for public schools and secondly through tuition and other costs for the school of their choice.

Public education is like the government collecting the food and clothing budget of everybody in the country and then using the money to buy gift cards to Walmart for everybody.  You could still shop somewhere else if you wanted to, but few people can afford to pay twice for the same things.

Do you believe it should be the role of the federal government to forgive student loan debt?

No, but for a different reason.  The federal government shouldn’t be in the student loan business in the first place.  That’s not a role that the Constitution gives to the federal government, and the government is trying to do too many things, and it is costing us far more than it should and what the private sector would.

We need to ask the question:  We used to have the best schools in the world, and now they are mediocre.  Why?  What has changed?

One big change is that we now have a federal Department of Education that has 50,000 employees.  That’s 1,000 employees for every state in the country.  I heard on the radio of a recent book that noted that our student population has increased in our country by about 10% in the last 50 years, and our school paid staffs have increased over 150%.  My numbers may be slightly off. 

Homeschooled children consistently do better than public school students, and their parents aren’t even trained teachers.  I saw recently a test given to 8^th grade students in 1895.  Most high school seniors today would have a hard time passing it. 

There are a lot of factors that contribute to this, but as for schools themselves, I would say that every school district has a school board and teachers, and that is all we really need.  Get the federal government out of the school business, and let teachers teach.  We would save so much money we could give every student a free computer and hire a lot more teachers.

Thanks again for asking.

Larry

Questions from my Senator Part 4 defending our country

Hi Mark

As per your latest questions:

 Do you believe the United States should use military force to fight terrorism?

The question is not worded correctly.  We are not fighting terrorism.  That is like saying that we are fighting random killings and bombings.  We are fighting Muslim jihadists, specifically al-Qaida, ISIS, Boko Haram, and any number of other organizations. 

The fact that, say, Boko Haram is in Africa and is no threat of mounting an attack in the United States does not make it less our enemy.  These groups all have a common goal: a world Islamic caliphate.  Each of these groups is working in specific nations at this time.  If we allow them to take over any of them, 1) we are standing by while evil people are murdering innocent people, and 2) they will in various ways in time unite with other nations so run to work in ways against the interests of the free world.  You can fight them now, or you can fight them later when they are much stronger.  But the fight is inevitable.  If they are able to attain a nuclear weapon, you know they would use it.  The world is not safe until these groups are neutralized.

So, yes, the military should be used to fight Muslim jihadists.  And our Congress should declare war on them, and then identify the particular groups.  And then we need to fight it as a war.  We fought and finished World War 2 in four years.  The rules of engagement that we have fought under in Iraq and Afghanistan were treasonous.  We should not put our soldiers at such risk. 

I understand the desire to minimize civilian casualties, but you don’t endanger the lives of our soldiers to do that.  There is a difference between targeting civilians and targeting an enemy with civilian casualties.  With a declaration of war, we put the world on notice who our enemies are and that those who collaborate with and give aid to the enemy are in danger.  If we fought World War 2 with the same rules of engagement today, we would not have won the war.

Do you support increased economic sanctions against Iran to apply non-military pressure which would increase the chances of an acceptable nuclear agreement?

This whole Iran situation is a joke.  How long has this been going on?  When you take years without resolving a problem, you allow the enemy time to prepare so that any military options now become more costly and eventually prohibitive.  Iran must be dealt with firmly and decisively.  You apply every sanction you can.  There is no room for negotiation.  There is nothing to negotiate.  We have reason to believe that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, and that is unacceptable.  If they don’t want the sanctions, then they need to prove to us that such is not the case.  And now.

How important is the United States’ strategic partnership with Israel?

Israel is our only real ally in the Middle East and one of our best friends in the world.  I wouldn’t even characterize it as a strategic partnership.  That makes it sound like our relationship is built only on a contingency basis, viz. we need them to help us secure our interests.  I believe our relationship goes beyond that.  It’s more like, say when one’s spouse has a stroke, and their partner continues in the relationship even though they might be the one doing all the giving. 

Do you support ending sequestration?

Yes, but probably not for the reasons you might think.  The Constitution gives the House the power of the purse.  All spending bills have to originate in the House.  Sequestration tells the House how to budget the money.  The House should be deciding that.  If they want to give the military more money, then they should.  If they don’t want to fund Obamacare or amnesty, that’s their right.  But they have lost the will to do their jobs.  They are afraid of the press and what the Democrats and the President will say about them.  The Republicans have had control of the House for two years, and spending and fiscal priorities are still out of control.  They wait until the last minute to do an appropriations bill, yet they were not in session for several months preceding the election and have hardly worked since.  This is totally irresponsible.

Merry Christmas!

Larry

Should Obamacare be repealed?

This is my response to a question to my from my Senator:

Do you support a full or partial repeal of Obamacare?

I would like to see Obamacare repealed in full.  This bill is a betrayal of our form of government. 

1)         Something like 1,700 exceptions to the law were allowed in order to get votes for the law. 

2)         It is 2,800 pages long, which we were told we would have to pass the law to find out what was in it.  That is a criminal betrayal of the public trust, but the lawmakers make the laws so nobody holds them to account. 

3)         The people who passed the law keep postponing parts of the law until after the next election, because they are afraid that people will vote them out of office when they feel the effects of this law.  

4)         The President lied about the provisions of the law over and over in order to get the thing passed.  He should have been impeached for that fact alone.  He is a proven liar.  How can we believe him on anything that he says?  We can never know he is lying until it is too late.  That is unacceptable for the President of the United States.

5)         Obamacare is raising the costs of health insurance to the point that a lot of people can’t afford insurance any more.  It requires so many things from insurance companies and insurance plans that prices can only go up.

6)         The success of the law (getting more people insured) is due primarily to the government covering most the cost of their policies, but the government is not straightforward about how much this is costing us.  Not only is this dishonest, but we simply can’t afford it.  We can’t keep telling people that they have a right to something, and then have the government (meaning: everybody else) paying for it.  We are $18 trillion in debt.  When interest rates normalize, we are going to be dumbfounded by how much of our federal budget will be going just for interest payments.

The answer to this is to bring American companies back to America and go back to employer based group insurance plans.