My Contract with America 2010: Transfer Power from Government to Individuals

A. Restore Liberty, Shrink Government
1. End all government to government welfare immediately.
a. No federal bailouts to state and local governments
b. End all federal aid to all foreign governments
and organizations
c. Abolish all existing federal transfers to state and
local governments, such as “Community
Development Block Grant Funds.”
d. Abolish the federal Department of Education
2. End all corporate welfare immediately.
a. Abolish the Department of Agriculture and all of
its subsidies immediately
b. Eliminate political control of business via tax
deductions and tax credits. See B below.
3. Phase out entitlements to families and individuals, replace
with lower taxes and better shopping opportunities.
a. Abolish food stamps as obesity is the greatest nutritional problem for US “poor.”
b. Phase out social security and medicare, replace with lower taxes and
free market solutions.
c. Eliminate political control of families and individuals via tax deductions and tax credits. See B below.

4. Freeze federal spending in nominal dollars. Enact a law whereby federal spending must never increase faster than inflation. Work toward spending
reductions. Enact a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution.

B. Restore Liberty, Reform the Federal Tax Code

1. Replace all federal income, payroll and business taxes with a progressive retail consumption tax. The FairTax, HR25 and S1025, is the best available
plan.

2. Repeal the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution.

C. Restore Liberty, Remove Burdensome Federal Regulations

1. Sunset all regulations. Keep Congress busy trying to renew or reject old laws.

2. Abolish federal minimum wage laws and permit more entry-level jobs for the “poor.”

3. Abolish federal compulsory schooling laws and reform child labor laws to
encourage apprenticeships.

I say that taxes, as well as being gathered at the state level or lower, with the few federal level programs that are legitimate such as the military and courts being taken out of funds from the states, should only be based on property tax, or more appropriately, real estate tax. This doesn’t unfairly target home owners as owners of apartments would have to pay too, and that is a cost they will pass on to their tenants, just like any other costs of being a landlord.

With all the program cuts that a libertarian government would introduce, there would be drastically less money required by government, and since a complicated tax code is far more inefficient, and allows far more opportunity for injustice, why not use the simplest tax system imaginable?

The idea of relying solely on real estate tax was introduced to me by an Australian Socialist I was acquainted with, and while his reasons for using such a system was based on a “morality” that I find absurd, the pragmatic reasons for it are impressive. The URL of the site he used to present his case is http://www.taxreform.com.au/index.php in case you would like to read more.

Another change I would like is a strengthening of the freedom of association, in all its forms, including the right to not associate. Quite simply, I’d like to see the repeal of all laws created to end racist practices. There may or may not have been a time for such laws, but now is not it. The way to promote equal treatment is not to make men different under the law. My biggest problem with such laws is that by forcing racists to hide their beliefs to avoid legal repercussions it keeps me from knowing which businesses I’d want to boycott for their owners actions, while still leaving them plenty of opportunity to discriminate every time they know they won’t get caught. Remove the legal implications and let the public scorn and lack of business punish them better. Some of these laws, like affirmative action, not only create a distinction between races that need not exist, while forcing businesses to ignore many applicants for jobs that may be better suited for a given position, also lead to feelings of animosity and rivalry. There were no laws passed making it illegal to discriminate against Irish, or Italians, or Germans, or any of the dozens of other immigrant ethnic groups of the 1800’s, and there was racial tensions between all these groups, and discrimination. These inequalities went away on their own, from people working and living with one another and learning to respect one another as individuals instead of based on their ancestry. Today you’d be hard pressed to find someone in the US racist against any of these groups, because they are all seen as the same group, racial barriers fall apart naturally through time unless they are artificially kept in place.

If you have a blog, please post your thoughts there whenever you get a chance and link back to here and Steve Newton’s post (see comment 7) so we can keep the conversation moving.

Best of luck with your race.

A Libertarian Contract with America in 2010? Some backstory

Duffy: Steve made a good point. We need to discuss procedure before actual planks. Thanks for commenting.

How about requiring government to follow the same accounting rules as private industry?

How about an automatic sunset clause on any tax?

Re/ the government claiming they screwed up before but THIS time they got it right, we can be sure they will use that line to implement misnomered reform if we’re not prepared with transition plans.

Unfortunately, the elderly vote in droves, they most benefit from entitlements and are least willing, it seems, to part with those benefits. They feel they earned them.

A family friend, a public school teacher, retired before 60 some years back, and reported to me perhaps a year or two later than he had already received in Social Security benefits all that he actually paid into the system.

Ten years later, he’s still cashing the checks.

I’m with you on the messages that need to be sent. 100%.

The problem is that:

- People aren’t ready to hear it. The news that entitlements are unfunded and unfundable is propagating, but slowly.

- Cutting off entitlements tomorrow is harsh. It’s like quitting drugs or alcohol cold turkey. Some people can do it, most can’t, and some would die trying. If there is no transition plan, if we insist on now or never, we will get never.

- Many still think Social Security is like a retirement account where the money they were _forced_ to pay in (’contribute’ connotes voluntary) is safely socked away in an account with their name on it. The reality will be a shock to these people.

I think phasing out Medicare in 5 years (with benefits reducing each year) is fair.

I think continuing Social Security for those already on it is acceptable but at a reduced rate, say 50-60% of current benefits. Those between 55-65 can get 10% of what they actually paid in ONLY. Everybody else gets nothing.

I agree, private charity can play a large role. I personally would donate for this purpose. Imagine if we had that 40-50% of our income that goes to taxes available to us. We would have a BOOM in charitable giving.

Why? Why does it HAVE to be “something?” I mean that question seriously.

The first sentence is entirely correct.
(a) People had (or maybe still have, if they’re old enough or naive enough) assumptions about the government.
(b) Their assumptions are going to be shattered (”pennies on the dollar”).

So should we allow them to keep their cozy assumptions, believing that they are actually going to get all they were led to believe they were going to get, namely, “social SECURITY” — or should we let them know as quickly as possible that INsecurity is the new political paradigm? The sooner they realize government cannot be trusted, the sooner they can begin making realistic plans for their own security.

Otherwise, the time is coming when they will be on Washington’s doorstep with their palm up, waiting for the dollars they “contributed,” only to find they get pennies instead. (And that will be the day when the government stops minting pennnies altogether, since gov’t inflation of the money supply has rendered pennies utterly obsolete.)

If they get pennies on the dollar, the government will always be able to say, “Well at least they got SOMETHING, and we’re going to make sure they get everything next time; we’re not going to make that mistake again.”

When Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted that the Fed caused the Great Depression (at Milton Friedman’s 90th birthday party), he said:

I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.

And people believe that.

We need to send a message: “You can’t believe the government.” “You can’t trust the government.”

And another message: “Using the government to take money from other people and give it to you is IMMORAL.”

And this message is clearly and unmistakably sent by shutting down social security and saying, “You shouldn’t have believed the government’s promises, and you shouldn’t rely on the government’s promise to steal from others for your benefit.”

Americans are the most generous people on earth — not with other people’s money, but with their own money. No elderly person will starve to death. If Social Security is shut down, and you can find an elderly person in need, then you’ll also be able to find employees and employers who are no longer “contributing” to Social Security, and you will be able to find non-profits who are well-funded by people who are at least 15% richer, and that elderly person WILL be taken care of.

Some elderly would rather have a government check than a nice Christian family bringing over a home-baked casserole, because some elderly don’t want to be nice. An impersonal government check is preferred over personal responsibility.

That’s another lesson that needs to be learned.

So, tell me again why “it has to be something”?

Right on education.

Re/ DHS. I’m leaning that way but I’m not sure yet that we don’t need a Dept of Homeland Security, albeit with a better name and a strictly limited mandate.

When I say fix entitlements, I mean phase them out. But I need to study the issue more before I feel comfortable with more specifics.

I think a transition period would be appropriate for Medicare.

Re/ Social Security, people have paid in under the assumption they would get something back. It will be pennies on the dollar, but it has to be something.

When I was in college, we all knew Social Security would not be there for us when we retired, and that will have to come true.

Of course, you don’t mean “eliminate education.” Just the Dept. of Education.

So why not “13. ELIMINATE the Dept. of Homeland Security and TSA.”

No. 8 (”ELIMINATE all welfare”) seems to be in conflict with No. 2 (”FIX” welfare for the elderly). Again, why not “eliminate?”

Otherwise, excellent suggestion. The “Contract” approach has proven its marketability.