What do I want in a president for 2016? – Taxes and Regulations

I want a president that will submit to congress a simplified tax code that reduces the tax burden and maximizes the tax revenue. These are not mutually exclusive ideas because a company’s tax burden is the tax rate they pay plus the cost of paying those taxes and the tax revenue generated is the tax rate paid minus the cost of collecting the taxes. It’d be a little unlikely for the president and legislature to reduce the tax code to one page, but maybe a reasonable goal would be to get a tax code that could be mostly explained in one page.

Now, a president that really simplifies the tax code is going to reveal just how much money the federal government wastes on programs that they have no business running because they are reserved to the states or the people. I’d like a president with the audacity to propose and push through congress sweeping changes to the federal bureaucracy, including cutting entire cabinet level departments. Granted, congress and past presidents have tried desperately to make all the departments relevant on a “we actually have business doing this” kind of level, so most (if not all) the departments cut would have some agencies survive. These agencies would and should either become independent (non-cabinet level) agencies or be moved to another appropriate department. Frankly, a slash and burn approach would do less harm, at this point, than continuing to allow a bloated bureaucracy to exist.

I’d like a president that would face and take on the national debt. We don’t need a balanced budget after the president leaves office. We don’t need a president that spends crazy money his/her first two years, so they can cut back and claim big cuts in the second two years. We need a president that vows to cut our national debt by $200 billion a year. Before anyone thinks that $200 billion a year should be easy, that’s the debt we pay off after paying interest every year, so the starting point would be closer to $450 billion of the budget. Paying down the debt this way would be painful at first, but if we just wanted to pay down the same amount each year, it would become less expensive to do over time. What would the time frame for paying off the debt be? It would take us ~100 years to pay off our debts. Revenues for the federal government in 2014 totaled ~$3 Trillion, so we can expect ~1/6^th of the tax revenue to go towards paying off the debt in the beginning.

I want a president that will vow to reduce unnecessary regulations, because these (like taxes) stifle business. The EPA, for instance, should work with state environmental agencies to make sure all state concerns are addressed by new or continuing economic activity. The EPA should regulate where state environmental agencies have not, but work as partners where states agencies have already or are already regulating for environmental safety. State government is, as it were, a lot closer to the voters and, thus, has a more vested interest in keeping the local voters happy. Whether it is environmental regulations or labor regulations, the federal government does not need to overwhelm state efforts; the federal government only needs to verify that state efforts are not inconsistent with the legitimate interests of other states. Other than that, let the states be as different in regulations and law as they already are in geography and demographics. A little good faith negotiating among the states and federal government will go a long way towards achieving economic/environmental (labor, etc.) efficiency.

What do all these desires lead to?

By reducing and eliminating federal interference in the economy, we will unleash the American people. The fact is that being an entrepreneur is already a scary proposition. When would be entrepreneurs look at all the regulations and taxes that would come down upon their heads if they go into business, a small population becomes even smaller. When the entrepreneurial spirit is so thoroughly taxed and regulated, fewer small businesses exist to compete with large companies for employees. Less competition for employees creates lower wages and fewer jobs for less experienced (or otherwise impaired) workers. When the economy is unleashed, competition creates regulations on the pay and treatment of employees all by itself. If a company fails to abide by the competition created regulation, they go out of business due to lack of employees. Getting government out of our lives does not give the big businesses more power, it invigorates and gives the individuals more power.

An Education in Indoctrination

Republicans are bad, that's what one teacher in West Allis, Wisconsin wants his/her students to think. To suggest that Republicans would say, "We should not help the poor, it's a waste of money," leaves me baffled. I realize that teachers, being human, are not going to be able to completely remove their views from their teaching, but I am baffled that this teacher could not see that this clearly crossed the line. Children are sent to school to be educated in the facts of history, science, math, civics, English-language, English-literature, etc. They don't need to be educated on what they should think about political issues.

Aside from the appallingly unprofessional test question, there is the issue of whether the teacher is right in his/her opinion or not. As someone that would certainly fall in line with the Republicans when it comes to helping the poor, I find this question extremely insulting. I don't need to take your money to help my poor neighbor. If they need their lawn mowed and can't afford a mower, I'll do it myself or lend them my mower. I don't need the government to take money from other people to help the local food bank, I'll donate food myself. Money is only one small part of the equation of helping the poor and taxed money is even less of that.