A Few Proposals by a Federalist

D. Programs that encourage private saving and the reduction of private debt should be strongly supported and encouraged. Many Americans are trapped by huge private debt, and are thereby vulnerable to a whole host of risks and dangers. Without personal savings almost any downturn can ruin a person. Our fascination and demand for instant gratification, without regard to cost is one of the most dangerous aspects of modern American life. It is time to change that, and return to the thrifty habits that typified our forbearers. If you want something, save your money until you can buy it. Credit purchases give the illusion that there is little or no connection between earning and spending. That must change.

C. Tax Reform is essential, but may not greatly offset the revenue problems we face. Federal Revenues are currently running about 20% of the GDP. That is almost as high as during WWII, and so the tax burden cannot be raised much without throwing the economy back into recession. Lowering the tax rate is problematical because the Federal government needs the revenue now, and the stimulus of lowered taxes may not be realized for a number of years yet. Tax reform is needed to help citizens understand that they are being fairly taxed. In today's tax environment the wealthy pay most of the income taxes, yet they are targeted by the Democratic Party to pay even more. The progressive income tax raises large sums, but it is also unfair to those who produce much of the nation's wealth. Flat taxes, and other simplified schemes are often attractive, but which if any would best suit the United States?

I. Build and maintain a credible volunteer military capable and flexible enough to successfully meet mission requirements in any two theaters simultaneously. This should be done without conscription, unless drastic and unforeseen events demand otherwise.

To offset the economic loss of base closings, a strong effort to "equalize" military spending among the various States should be attempted.

3. Improve Guard and Reserve training and logistics. 2004 has highlighted deficiencies that need correction ASAP. Training needs to be much more rigorous and at levels similar to that given regular forces, especially in the Army.

B. Continue the "Transformation" policies begun by SecDef Rumsfeld.

The importance of building and maintaining a credible military force to national security is self-evident. Only so long as the nation remains vastly superior to any other military can we be reasonably secure. Diplomatic credibility and deterrence both depend on credible military force. If we should lose our military edge, what bulwark would we have against the PRC, DPRK, Iran, or any other organization that threatened the nation?

C. Tax Reform is essential, but may not greatly offset the revenue problems we face. Federal Revenues are currently running about 20% of the GDP. That is almost as high as during WWII, and so the tax burden cannot be raised much without throwing the economy back into recession. Lowering the tax rate is problematical because the Federal government needs the revenue now, and the stimulus of lowered taxes may not be realized for a number of years yet. Tax reform is needed to help citizens understand that they are being fairly taxed. In today's tax environment the wealthy pay most of the income taxes, yet they are targeted by the Democratic Party to pay even more. The progressive income tax raises large sums, but it is also unfair to those who produce much of the nation's wealth. Flat taxes, and other simplified schemes are often attractive, but which if any would best suit the United States?

D. Programs that encourage private saving and the reduction of private debt should be strongly supported and encouraged. Many Americans are trapped by huge private debt, and are thereby vulnerable to a whole host of risks and dangers. Without personal savings almost any downturn can ruin a person. Our fascination and demand for instant gratification, without regard to cost is one of the most dangerous aspects of modern American life. It is time to change that, and return to the thrifty habits that typified our forbearers. If you want something, save your money until you can buy it. Credit purchases give the illusion that there is little or no connection between earning and spending. That must change.

The U.S. Constitution is the very best arrangement so far arrived at by humanity.

A. Decrease Federal involvement in issues that are better handled at State, or local levels.

2. State Programs should be funded by State revenues. This alone would free federal revenues to offset the costs of servicing the National Debt and military spending.

Returning most social programs and their costs to local governments would greatly reduce the pork barrel,

Now if that doesn't set off a fire-storm I'll be greatly surprised.

Cycloptitron, your willingness to soak the rich is a popular one. I have at least two objections. First, fairness. How is it fair that one person who earns $200,000/year be taxed at 50% of their income, while another who earns $10,000/year may pay nothing? Democrats since the times of Jefferson and Jackson have catered to the propertyless and poor by advocating redistribution of wealth. If a person has wealth the assumption is that they acquired it in some unethical or unlawful way and that they should be deprived of it. If a person is without property or poor, that isn't because they lack initiative, skill, good judgement, or good fortune, but because of some sort of wealthy cabal. The whole view, in my opinion, is anti-democratic and demeaning to all the individuals who make up the People.

That leads to my second objection to the idea that those who are fortunate enough to build personal fortunes should be deprived of them. To take a persons wealth, the profit of their efforts, from them in a disproportionate way discourages initiative.

Why start and build a business with the idea of accumulating wealth for yourself and family, if it will be taken away to benefit those with less initiative?

The government already legislates and constrains how businesses are run so tightly that many small businesses have difficulty in securing any profit.

If the business can not produce a profit, then the person who tries to better themselves are ruined and discouraged from starting a new business.

Tax those who produce the wealth too heavily, and they can't afford. Large corporation may be able to afford good compensation packages, but corporations tend to escape taxation though their employees do not.

The government has come to collect significant parts of its revenue from income taxes, and those taxes have increasingly fallen on an ever smaller proportion of the People. Somewhere recently I saw something to the effect that 5% of the People pay over 80% of all the income taxes.

That is neither fair, nor is it good public policy.

The traditional role and mission of the military was to conduct combat operations against the military forces of an enemy nation. 20th century conflict was on a large scale, and traditional doctrine in the US was that our military should be capable of fighting in two widely separated theaters. China is large, but the theater would also include Korea, Mongolia, Japan, and other Western Pacific locals. My reference to "mission requirements" was not clear, but I was referring mostly to the the use of the military to break things and kill enemy combatants.

"Equalize or maintain current distribution of spending? Equalising would sort of disturb present trading patterns." I'm not sure I understand your point. The various States within the Union love to have military bases on their soil because they bring a lot of Federal dollars into local economies. Acquiring and keeping military bases within one's State is one of the most traditional "pork barrel" targets of those elected to national office. The result has been the creation and maintainance of many inefficient, costly military installations that disburse the military. That tends to reduce training opportunities, and makes the logistics of deployment more difficult. Efforts to trim military installations back to those that are more cost-effective and necessary have been difficult. My proposal that some effort be made to offset the loss of Federal dollars by funding other programs/projects is intended only to ease the realignment effort. Trade between the States should not be affected at all. Why would offsetting the cost to local economies of base closures have any impact on the trade between, say Main and Montana?

To offset the economic loss of base closings, a strong effort to "equalize" military spending among the various States should be attempted.

National Guard and Reserve training needs to be altered by increasing its scope and extent. Both are intended to be "available in considerable numbers if necessary, while cheap to maintain in times of peace." The problem has been that not enough money and effort has been spent to insure that these troops are fully prepared for deployment into the sort of missions that are most likely in the 21st century. While the RA has been revolutionized, the Guard and Reserve are still caught-up in a timelock around 1958. Arms and equipment for these troops are obsolete and often inappropriate to their deployment. The gap between what they should be and what they are needs to be fixed without delay.

The military is still far better at combat operations against organizations that are clearly in arms, than it is in the sort of "nation building" missions that have been added in recent times. We are very good at taking out tactical targets and command structures, and we can take, hold and secure any bit of ground necessary. The problem is that our military is, and will be learning for some time, how to be diplomats, firemen, waste treatment operators, and etc. These aren't really appropriate uses of soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors, but they have been added to our tasking. It will take awhile before our military is as good at those efforts as they are at destroying military targets and opposition.

Yes, we need to be VASTLY superior to any possible opponent if the military is to be a full deterrent. Our nuclear deterrent is only useful against nations with the capacity to use nuclear weapons against our forces, or homeland. We also require "conventional/Special Forces" capable of clear superiority to any force put into the field against the interests of the US, or our allies. Those who are friends and allies today, may be enemies tomorrow, especially if they come to believe that they can win a military conflict against us.

Reduction in the amount of private debt would, I believe, improve our economy while reducing the risks to individual lives. Greater savings would provide the capitol for starting new businesses, and provide a hedge against economic downturns and adjustments. The idea that something can be gotten for nothing, that there is no intimate connection between earning and spending, is a dangerous path that far too many Americans have taken. People will spend, but they should not run up their personal debts far beyond what their income can support. I don't suggest that credit be "outlawed", only that the public be encouraged to save more. We need to promote the idea that individuals are responsible and that our personal fortune is in our own hands. Everyone wants to be financially better off, and the way to that goal isn't for the government to take care of us at the expense of others, but for each citizen to work, invest and save toward our own future.

If you know a better governmental system than the U.S. Constitution, what is it? Finding and maintaining a balance between the power of society and the individual is a difficult thing to achieve, and few systems have had much success. The U.S. Constitution with its checks and balances makes it difficult for any interest group to hold power for very long, and has generally done a good job of protecting the rights of minorities against majorities. The Constitution encourages interest group competition, and competition between ideas. If you have a government you like, then keep it. I don't expect that there are many Americans who would like to abandon our system of government as defined by the Constitution.

I am a bit surprised that my proposals did not provoke more comment and criticism.

Cycloptitron, your willingness to soak the rich is a popular one. I have at least two objections. First, fairness. How is it fair that one person who earns $200,000/year be taxed at 50% of their income, while another who earns $10,000/year may pay nothing?

Democrats since the times of Jefferson and Jackson have catered to the propertyless and poor by advocating redistribution of wealth.

If a person has wealth the assumption is that they acquired it in some unethical or unlawful way and that they should be deprived of it. If a person is without property or poor, that isn't because they lack initiative, skill, good judgement, or good fortune, but because of some sort of wealthy cabal. The whole view, in my opinion, is anti-democratic and demeaning to all the individuals who make up the People.

That leads to my second objection to the idea that those who are fortunate enough to build personal fortunes should be deprived of them. To take a persons wealth, the profit of their efforts, from them in a disproportionate way discourages initiative. Why start and build a business with the idea of accumulating wealth for yourself and family, if it will be taken away to benefit those with less initiative?

The government already legislates and constrains how businesses are run so tightly that many small businesses have difficulty in securing any profit. If the business can not produce a profit, then the person who tries to better themselves are ruined and discouraged from starting a new business. Tax those who produce the wealth too heavily, and they can't afford. Large corporation may be able to afford good compensation packages, ut corporations tend to escape taxation though their employees do not. The government has come to collect significant parts of its revenue from income taxes, and those taxes have increasingly fallen on an ever smaller proportion of the People. Somewhere recently I saw something to the effect that 5% of the People pay over 80% of all the income taxes. That is neither fair, nor is it good public policy.