The End of the Age of ‘NO’?

Current Republican and Democrat proposals and policies are not capable of solving the problems with the economy and growth of government. The predictable response of Democrats to every challenge is to raise taxes, spend more money, and increase the role of government. This approach is not solving our problems but it is ruining the economy. Massive federal deficits, heavy burden of taxation, rapid and out of control growth of entitlements, and growth in social programs which undermine the family are all the direct result of Democrat’s love affair with big government.

As bad as the Democrat approach is, the Republican plan may be even worse. What plan? They are the party of ‘no’. This is no longer acceptable. Americans demand real solutions to real problems. If more government and simply saying ‘no’ is not the answer, then what is?
I believe our problems are not being solved because problems have been misdiagnosed.

In the past, we have focused on consumption.
We need to focus on production.

In the past, we have focused on redistribution of the wealth.
We need to focus on redistributing the ability to work.

In the past, we have built government social programs.
We need to build the ability of the family to provide its own social services.

In the past, we have demonized and discouraged private sector usage of natural resources.
We need to recognize our economy and jobs are dependent upon a balanced and responsible use of natural resources.

In the past, we allowed the federal government to be responsible for social programs.
In the future, the state and the local communities and families need to be responsible for social programs.

In the past, we focused on monetary policy.
In the future, we need to focus on production policy.

In the past, government jobs and private sector jobs were of equal value.
In the future, private sector jobs need to be seen as production jobs while government jobs are seen as consumption jobs.

In the past, redistribution of the wealth was seen as a form of charity.
In the future, giving a person a skill and a job will be seen as a higher form of charity.

America can solve its problems if we correctly identify them. We need to focus on production, not consumption. Deficit spending, Keynesian economics, and funding government social programs are all examples of policies based upon consumption. Consider; social programming consumes 63 percent of the federal budget and 85 percent of the state budget. If we reduce costs in these areas, tax cuts will be easy. How can tax cuts come before spending reduction?

Many Republicans and Democrats share my concerned about the growth of federal deficits and increasing taxes. However, most citizens do not realize the cause of government growth. The federal government has grown in the 20th century almost exclusively in one area – entitlements. They now make up 63 percent of the federal budget -- up from 28 percent in 1965. (Entitlements are payments to people not to work. Can you imagine anything more detrimental to our standard of living and the mental health of a people?)

The solution, I suggest, is to transfer entitlement spending from the federal government back to the states where current services could be maintained at a 30 percent reduction in costs. The cost reduction is achievable because of the wasteful nature of federal programs. Then, as social programs are transferred, slowly over time, to the states, the states can move toward a mentor system of social programming that helps individuals become self-sufficient and productive. In this manner, social spending could be reduced as much as 50 to 75 percent within 10 years. The federal deficit completely eliminated, people put back to work, and America will once again become the financial giant it was meant to be.

Many school teachers and those involved in Health and Welfare programs have come to me, as a state legislator, and asked me to raise taxes. They assert that we cannot reduce spending to public schools or on social programs without harming services. I explain to them the following:

Tax revenues come mainly from private sector economy activity. The reason tax revenues are down is because private sector economic activity has been reduced. If we want to stabilize the tax base then we need to increase private sector economic activity in 5 main areas: mining, logging, manufacturing, energy production, and agriculture. We cannot stimulate these five areas and put people back to work with our current system of environmental regulations. They need to be reformed to allow us to use our natural resources. If you want more money for schools and social programs; help me reform the environmental laws and regulations.

No one seems to know how to respond negatively against this common sense reasoning.
This short essay is a basic outline of the problems and plan of action that I believe America needs to pursue. We can begin in Idaho. If you agree with me, share it with your friends and neighbors. I am also very interested in your insights and wisdom. Together, we can change America back to a limited government, prosperous, charitable Republic. If you are interested in receiving updates on these efforts and specific, practical legislation that can be implemented in the next legislative session, please feel free to contact me at stvnthn4@aol.com.

New Sawmill in Emmett

I attended the opening and ribbon cutting of the first new sawmill opened in the last 15 years. Emerald Forest Products is owned by Dick Vinson, Dennis Drake, and the Pruyn family. It will provide 47 new jobs. The sawmill is located on the old Boise-Cascade sawmill site in Emmett.

Our standard of living and quality of life depend upon access to natural resources. That is where our wealth comes from. The saw mill cost $10 million to open. This is an investment of $212,000 per employee. Another 30 jobs will be created to support the mill in related industries. This mill and the jobs created add to our tax base and our overall standard of living.

By contrast, the Health and Welfare budget was $1.7 billion in Idaho last year. If that $1.7 billion had been used to invest in production facilities at the rate of $212,000 per employee, Idaho could have had 8,018 new jobs created to run the facilities plus another 5,100 support jobs. Imagine creating 13,000 new jobs. Instead, we are spending $1.7 billion and the money is simply gone. No new buildings, no new jobs, and no new businesses that pay taxes.

The lost economic opportunity is one of the problems with our current entitlement system. At the end of 10 years we could have 130,000 new jobs with the money now being spent on government social programs. Now, I understand that we can’t simply eliminate all social programs; but, we should be able to reduce the costs of the programs and free up capital for business expansion. A job is a higher form of charity than a government handout.

Can you balance the federal budget by stopping earmarks?

Vaughn Ward has indicated that he wants to balance the federal budget by stopping bailouts and earmarks. Will this balance the budget?

Bailouts: are a huge issue. We cannot continue to use bailouts to stimulate the economy for two reasons. First, it is debt which must be paid back. Second, much of the bailout money went to special interest groups including Fanny Mae. Very little of the stimulus money went to the private sector to create jobs.

However, we had massive deficits before the bailout era. So that leaves us with balancing the budget by stopping earmarks.

Earmarks: in 2009 there were 9287 total earmarks that cost $12.8 billion. If all earmarks were eliminated that would save us $12.8 billion. However, $12.8 billion is only .3 percent of the total budget. The deficit is $1.8 trillion. We need to find savings 140 times larger.

Conclusion: while stopping earmarks is wonderful and a good idea, by itself this strategy does absolutely nothing and only plays to the prejudices of the voters. Real solutions must also focus on social spending and military cuts. I hope someone running for national office will have the courage to say it.