Posted by 
(George Phillips, Candidate for US Congress District 22 Speaking at July Ulster Orange Tea Party)
By Caryn Sobel
The Ulster-Orange Tea Party members were addressed on July 8th by Warren Redlich (candidate for governor), George Phillips (Congressional candidate, 22nd district), Joseph DioGuardi (U.S. Senate candidate), and Gary Berntsen (U.S. Senate candidate). A common theme shared by all four was the need to cut waste in government, with solutions including the consolidation and/or elimination of bureaucracies and wasteful practices.
Warren Redlich, the Libertarian gubernatorial candidate seeking the Republican line, gave specific examples of waste in state government, e.g., the Commission of Correction and the Office for Technology. He mentioned the very high taxes New Yorkers pay, as well as additional “fees” added to traffic tickets, etc. Redlich pointed to the $3 billion per year in the state budget for “economic development,” and the role of crony capitalism in the less-than-optimal use of those resources. Redlich explained the details of his plan to cap public salaries at $100K per year, and public pensions at $75K per year.
George Phillips, running to replace Maurice Hinchey in the NY-22 congressional district, spoke about his experience in Washington, DC in the office of Congressman Chris Smith. The amount and variety of waste he saw helped him to formulate his plan to consolidate and eliminate government agencies and services. A major theme of Phillips’s campaign is the need for earmark reform; he gave concrete examples of Congressman Hinchey’s use of the earmark system. Phillips closed by encouraging the members to be part of Benjamin Franklin’s “rising sun” of America, referred to at the Constitutional Convention.
Joe DioGuardi, running to replace Kirsten Gillibrand in the U.S Senate, next explained how his experience as a CPA gave him a much-needed perspective on the issues facing our country. He traced the paths of some of the most dangerous of the economic threats we face, such as the Social Security liability of over $45 trillion, as well as the impact of the new finance “reform” legislation which exempts Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from the accounting. DioGuardi spoke the stark language of a balance sheet, and clarified how the federal government and Congress are endangering the nation by not addressing these issues in the same manner.
Gary Berntsen, running for the U.S. Senate against Charles Schumer, agreed with the need for cutting government spending and size. He began by stating that he was in favor of cuts for all services except for Social Security, Medicare, and the VA. Berntsen went on to discuss the danger of our national borders being unsecured, and voiced his strong support of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s stand on immigration. H e explained what we need to do in order to secure our borders and then prevent illegal workers, including his support for e-verification. He discussed the situation in Iraq and the Middle East, and the prospects (or not) of imminent war.
All candidates were generous with their time for questions, and addressed a wide range of issues forthrightly.
Some interesting ideas for Republicans and Tea Partiers from Bruno Behrend at
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/14340.html
Premise 1 – As our Federal government runs away from the entitlement mess they themselves created, some states are starting to see bankruptcy looming on the horizon. As the left clamors for tax increases to feed the beast, the right sits back and says “no” to everything, ignoring the fact that the left is going to get their tax increases by simple operation of time and demography. This may be good strategery in the short term, but the right is setting itself up for miserable failure, as they will forced to become the “tax collector for the welfare state.”
Premise 2 – The reliance on the income tax as a revenue generator has failed miserably. First, the right, since the 1980s, has been so successful in removing much of the working poor and middle class from the tax rolls. This makes much of the electorate immune to what is now pretty much a siren song for “tax cuts.” This has resulted in dramatically weakening one of the right’s most powerful political tools.
Second, the income tax is a horrible way to collect revenue. When times are good, only the rich now pay, and when times are bad, revenues collapse, as we can see in places that rely on the steeply progressive income tax (CA and National Budget). Add to this fact the negative impact that progressive income taxation has on investment and incentives, and you have a very destructive tax.
Premise 3 – The right, and this includes the libertarian and conservative think tank sector as well as the Republican party, is making a substantial strategic error in ignoring the potential (political and economic benefits) of a massive tax swap. By dissing every proposal for revenue increases (and No, tax cuts aren’t going to work with a $1.4 trillion deficit and a hangover from a 25 year spending/debt/tax cut binge), the right is falling for the trap of arguing for tax cuts for a shrinking class of people while arguing against a superior policy – namely broadening the tax base and making everyone pay for the welfare state that still has substantial political support.
___
If the above premises are substantially true – and I can make an extended and extensive case that they are – then our “center-right” leadership is failing us in merely saying “no” to all tax proposals, and gambling on the ability to drag this cycle of stupidity around one more time.
The solution is to make the case for a massive overhaul of the tax system, and transition the system from one that relies on income (corporate and individual and Soc. Sec.) taxation to one that relies on taxing consumption (VAT, National Sales Tax, or FairTax). This is a wonderful opportunity for a party of ideas (Republicans, before they succumbed to corrupt Hastertism) and a vibrant think tank community (before they began to resemble an echo chamber of conservo-libertarian apparatchiks promoting stale doctrine) to lay the ground work for a 3rd and 4th “American Century.”
There are even more new ideas (and political and economic benefits) to go along with this new (and superior) tax policy.
Why aren’t we talking about increasingly popular ideas like constitutional spending caps? Why aren’t we lauding the replacement of the the bureaucratic entitlement state with a yearly stipend for every American (see Fair Tax rebate or Charles Murray)?
Instead of fighting against a welfare state that most Americans still support (Soc. Sec., “health care reform,” and public education), why aren’t we framing our ideas as the “individualization” of government assistance through retirement accounts, health savings accounts, and scholarships and education savings accounts?
By Harry Lewis on Jul 28, 2010